f 


OUR    TRADE    WITH    CANADA. 


ARGUMENT 


OF 


HON.  SELWYN  Z.  BOWMAN, 

OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 


IX  THE 


HOUSE  OF   REPRESENTATI^aiS, 


TuESPiY,  June  1,  1880. 


"The  care  of  our  national  commerce  redounds  more  to  the  richew 
and  ]>ro8perity  of  the  pnbliu  than  any  other  act  of  government." 

AomsoN. 


WASHINGTON. 

1880. 


OUR   TRADE   WITH    CANADA. 


ARGUMENT 


ov 


HON.  SELWYN  Z.  BOWMAN, 

OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 


IN  THB 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


Tuesday,  June  1,  1880. 


"The  care  of  our  national  commerce  redounds  more  to  the  riches 
and  prosperity  of  the  public  than  any  other  act  of  government." 
,;    ;  .  •    ,         .■  Addison. 


WASHINGTON. 
1880. 


-h 


'-;,■!■■•.''    '-"'■ 


ARGUMENT 

or 


RON.    8ELWYN   Z.    BOWMAN 


tOnliM  "joint  resolntion  (H.  R.  No.  149)  for  the  Appointment  of  comiuiHaioners  to 
;Mueitain  ami  report  a  basin  for  a  reciprocity  treaty  between  the  CTnited  States 
laadthe  British  proviuoes,"  (report  Nu.  11S7.) 

Mr.  BOWMAN  said : 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  queHtiona  nnderlying  this  resolution  and  seek- 
ing an  investigation  and  a  solution,  are  of  vast  magnitude,  and  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  have  had,  and  will  have,  a  great  effect  upon  the 
iaterests  of  the  people  and  the  various  branches  of  industry  of  our 
430untry.  Our  commercial  or  trade  interests  are  the  mainspring  of 
our  prosperity.  To  protect  and  foster  these  interests,  in  view  of  onr 
enormously  increased  and  increasing  productions,  to  preserve  for  onr 
oommerce  all  the  foreign  markets  which  it  has  had,  to  open  up  and 
extend  those  markets  to  the  greatest  possible  extent,  to  make  our 
powers  of  sale  atlvaucn  at  au  equal  pace  with  onr  powers  of  produc- 
tion, these  questions  merit  and  will  receive  the  earnest  consideratiou 
-of  Congress. 

However  members  may  differ  <«  to  the  expediency  of  the  proposed 
.  resolutioHj  I  am  coutident  that  aey  will  agree  as  to  its  importance 
and  as  to  its  being  worthy  of     il  investigation. 

To  show  the  ioiportauce  p  m  extent  of  our  commercial  relations 
with  the  Dominion  of  Cant  .a,  to  demonstrate  the  necessity  of  their 
careful  investigation  with  a  view  to  their  protection  and  further 
growth,  is  the  object  of  this  argument ;  and  if  I  am  obliged  to  treat 
of  the  subject  somewhat  at  length,  I  am  sure  that  members  will  par- 
don it,  if  thereby  I  am  enabled  to  throw  any  light  upon  these  long- 
discussed  questions,  which  in  one  way  or  another  at  different  times 
have  threatened  the  mutual  prosperity  and  even  the  peace  of  the  two 
countries. 

I  shall  present  what  I  have  to  say  upon  this  question  according  to 
the  following 

AU8TKACT  OF  ABOUMBNT. 

1.  Resolution  is  for  information  only. 

2.  Reciprocity  does  not  mean  free  trade. 

A.  Present  idea  of  reciprocity  is  not  of  free  trade. 

B.  Old  reciprocity  treaty  did  not  mean  free  trade. 

C.  This  movement  does  not  mean  the  old  reciprocity  treaty. 
'.  3.  Is  Canada  worth  treating  with  f 

Importance  of  Dominion  as  to — 

A.  Location ; 

B.  Area; 

C.  Population; 

D.  Shipping  aud  transportation ; 
JB.  General  commerce ; 


F.  Special  commerce  with  thn  United  States. 
4.  Did  the  former  treaty  beuetlt  iis  f 

A.  What  that  treaty  was. 

B.  History  of  former  treaty  and  of  repeal. 

C.  Eil'ect  of  fortner  treaty. 

D.  Elttict  of  its  repeal. 

E.  Immateriality  of  the  question  here. 

ft.  Is  the  condition  of  affairs  at  the  present  time  such  as  to  make 
an  inquiry  advisable  ? 

A.  The  new  Ciuiadiiin  tariff.  .  . 

B.  Comparison  of  now  iiud  old  tariff. 

C.  Results  of  new  tarifi 

D.  Critical  importance  of  question  at  present  time. 

G.  Is  there  any  need  of  extending  or  enlarging  our  markets  f 
Extent  of  our  productions. 

7.  Is  this  the  best  way  to  meet  these  (piestions  ? 

A.  Mngnitude  of  the  question. 

B.  Why  commission  is  necessary. 
■''■.,  1.  To  collect  facts. 

2.  To  ascertain  law. 

8.  Is  there  any  general  doniiind  for  tliisT 

A.  In  Canada.  . 

'-).'.  B.  In  the  United  States.  ■  '': 

•»  C.  Immateriality  of  thw  question. 

9.  Iiijustice  and  discrimination  in  refusing  this  investigation. 

Investigation  for  coninit^rcial  interests. 

10.  Are  there  any  objection's  to  the  resolution  T 

A.  Feeling  of  hostility  to  Cantxla. 

B.  Desire  to  force  annexation.  iA' 

C.  Feeling  as  to  tisht^ry  questions. 

D.  Olvjections  to  former  reciprocity  treaty  not  pertinent  here. 

E.  That  it  is  impossible  to  agrt-e. 

11.  "Fishery"  question. 

A.  A  <iue8tion  of  money,  not  of  feeling. 

B.  Desirability  of  a  commission  to  settle  this  question. 

12.  Are  there  any  legal  objections  to  tbe  proposed  resolutions  7 

A.  Only  a  resolution  tor  information. 

B.  Treaty-making  or  tariff  powors  of  differeu  t  branches  of  Gov- 
■>  ernment.  -        •     ■   ' 

*  C.  "  Favored- nations"  clauses  in  treaties. 

I.— KE80LUTI0N  FOR  INFORMATION  ONI.Y 

I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  particularly  to  the  words- 
of  the  resolution  now  under  consideration.    It  reads  as  follows : 

Joint  reoohi  tion  for  the  appointment  of  cnmmisiioners  to  ascertain  and  report  a  basis 
for  a  reciprocity  treaty  between  tbe  United  States  and  the  British  Provinces. 
Betolved  by  the  Senate  and  Houtie  of  liepreientativea  of  the  United  States  of  America 
inOmigrese  agnembled,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be,  and  hereby  is, 
requested  to  appoint  three  oomuiissioners,  by  and  with  tlie  advice  and  conHcnt  ol 
the  Senate,  to  confer  with  other  commissioners  to  l)e  appointed  by  the  government 
of  Great  Britain,  whenever  it  shall  be  the  wish  of  tliat  government  to  appoint  com- 
missioners on  itt-  part ;  snch  coujmissioners  on  the  part  of  this  Government  to  as- 
certain and  repom  on  vrbat  basis  reciprocal  trade,  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the 
people  of  the  United  ocates  and  the  said  provinces,  can  be  e8tablisbe<l. 

This  is  simply  and  solely  a  resolution  of  inquiry.  No  powers  what- 
ever are  given  to  the  commissioners,  except  to  investigate  the  ques- 
tions referred  to  in  the  resolution  and  to  report  the  tacts  and  their 
oonolusions  thereon  to  Congress  for  its  action.  Neither  directly  nor 
by  implication  can  Congress  be  regfirded  as  in  any  way  adopting  a 


5 

policy  or  giviug  a  pledge  by  the  adoption  of  tliln  resolution.  It  can 
thereby  neither  deolare  for  or  aguinat  reci^irocitv  with  the  Dominion 
of  Canada,  or  in  any  way  exprew  an  opinion  in  reganl  to  tariff  or 
free  trade  with  Canada  or  with  other  countries.  By  the  adoption  of 
this  resolntiou  Congress  will  leave  itself  entirely  free  to  act  iu  the 
future  as  its  judgment  shall  dictate,  und  simply  says  to  the  com- 
mercial world  and  to  all  others  interested  in  the  important  questions 
referred  to  by  the  resolution  that  it  in  no  way  prejadices  the  case, 
but  before  deciding  it  or  in  any  way  expressing  any  opinion  upon  it 
desires  to  obtain  the  fullest  pousible  inforniatlou. 

For  my  own  part,  1  desire  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  I  do 
not  pledge  myself  to  the  support  of  a  system  of  reciprocity  like  the 
former  one  between  this  coiiutry  and  the  Hiitish  provinces,  or  before- 
hand to  any  system  of  reciprocal  trade  which  mav  be  advised  by  the 
commission.  I  simnly  say  tliut  tho  Hubject  is  of  great  importance, 
should  be  thoroughly  and  systoriiatically  investigated  by  a  cominis- 
sion  of  competent  experts,  and  that  upon  their  report,  either  ao  to 
accepting,  rejecting,  or  modifying  it,  I  sliould  act  (if  I  tiad  any  op- 
portunity to  act  upon  it  at  nil)  ax  my  judgment  as  to  what  is  best  for 
the  interests  of  our  own  country  stiould  dictate.  Selftsh  considera- 
tions should  and  must  govern  nations.  The  first  duty  o):  a  nation  is 
to  itself.  In  regard  to  this  and  similar  questions  the  only  thing  to 
be  discussed  is  whether  the  proposed  action  will  be  a  benetit  to  the 
people  of  this  country.  If  the  building  np  of  a  Chinese  wall  to  cut 
ofFall  commercial  intercourse  between  this  country  and  Canada  would 
be  of  benefit  to  our  merchants,  niantifacturers,  laborerx,  and  farmers, 
and  to  onr  people  generally,  I  Nhiuild  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  flo  what 
I  could  to  l)nild  up  such  a  wall,  whettier  composed  of  prohibitory 
tarifl's  or  any  other  maturiiil.  Self-protection  is  u  uatimi  s  tirst  law, 
and  in  regard  to  questions  of  our  commercial  policy  with  other  coun- 
tries it  is  inadmissible  to  discuss  what  the  effect  on  the  other  coun- 
tries will  be  until  we  have  thoroughly  considered  and  disposed  of  the 
question  as  to  what  the  etteet  on  our'own  country  will  be. 

In  regard  to  the  great  questions  of  tariff  in  their  broadest  aspect, 
the  only  question  which  carries  weight  in  ray  mind  is,  as  to  whether 
our  people  are  to  be  most  benefited  by  tariffs  which  shall  protect  onr 
industries  and  keep  the  wheels  of  business  in  active  motion,  or  by 
free  trade,  which  shall  open  up  our  markets  to  the  competition  of 
the  world.  I  would  therefore  treat  this  question  of  reciprocity  as  a 
practical  business  question,  to  be  considered  and  deciden  only  as  it 
affects  our  own  interests.  It  is  simply  a  doUar-and-cent,  or  what 
the  Germans  call  a  bread-and-butter  question.  These  fine-spun  and 
pleasant  theories  of  the  fraternity  of  nations  can  well  be  considered 
and  have  a  place,  when  we  are  called  upon  by  the  cry  to  which  our 
people  always  nobly  respond,  for  us  to  stretch  out  the  hand  of  charity 
and  of  loving  sympathy  to  the  poor  and  distressed  of  other  countries; 
bnt  when  the  questions  recur  to  us,  as  legislators  for  the  country,  of 
making  laws  and  adopting  policies  of  trade  or  other  intercourse  with 
foreign  peoples,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  remember  the  vaet  interests 
intrusted  to  our  ohaige  and  the  multitudes  of  citizens  who  look  to 
their  law-makers  for  protection.  Where  material  interests  are  con- 
cerned, and  in  the  fierce  struggle  for  existence,  as  strong  between 
nations  as  individuals,  and  while  the  doctrine  of  "survival  of  the 
fittest "  prevails,  the  old  Ishmaelitish  doctrine  must  govern  a  nation, 
and  for  the  protection  of  its  people  its  hand  must  be  against  every 
other  man's  hand,  and  every  other  man's  hand  against  it. 

If  a  reciprocal  trade  with  the  British  provinces  can  be  in  such  a 


(i 

maiiucr  ohiiililiMlied  that  it  will  bo  for  the  l)eu('lit  ol'  our  iieoplu  uh  » 
whole,  tht'U  It  IN  uur  iliity  to  favor  any  miuL  Nuh«'iii('  ul  reci|>rooal 
trade  ;  but.  if  it  woultl  iii.jme  our  couutry,  it  «ill  be  our  duty  to  op- 
pose auy  Huch  Holit-nu'.  Our  C'liiiiidiuu  iifi^lil-orN  nii);bt  uh  well  thor- 
oughly uu(1<-rHtHn<l  that  weNhall  apiiioiicb  tbiH  (|ueHtion  (JuHt  m  they 
will  cousitler  ii)  iu  a  buHiueHH  way,  aud  oidy  for  the  (lurptme  of  bene- 
tltiug  our  (duuiry.  It  l»  not  a  (|ue(<iiouof  IteliiiK, of  tteutluieiitality, 
or  of  brotherly  love  or  hatre<l  between  the  two  couutrieH,  but  Hiiuplv 
a  question  of  material  beneiitH.  Let  it  be  deniouMtratod  that  ftiioh 
trade  will  be  of  bcuetit  to  tliix  country,  and  we  ceitaiiily  Hhall  favor 
it  by  all  proper  le^iHlation  ;  let  it  be  deuuniHtrated  that  Huch  trade 
will  not  be  a  benefit  to  tliit*  country,  and  we  certainly  will  destroy  it 
by  all  proi)er  legislation.  That  Ih  the  only  (jueHtion  in  this  case,  aud 
that  is  the  question  that  we  desire  to  have  investigated  in  the  most 
thorough  and  complete  manner  by  this  commission.  I  may  say  here 
that,  the  question  being  as  I  have  stated,  it  is  no  argument  whatever 
against  it  to  re])ly,  as  many  have  done,  that  a  reciprocal  trade  will 
be  of  more  advantage  to  Canada  than  to  thit# country  ;  for  while  that 
might  be  true,  it  might  also  still  be  true  that  such  reciprocal  trade 
would  still  be  of  advantage  to  this  country.  If  Ireland  was  starving, 
and  wesold  her  corn,  it  would  be  of  more  advantage  to  her  to  get  the 
corn  and  relieve  her  sufferings  and  save  her  ])opnlation  than  to  na  to 
sell  it ;  but  thence  no  argument  could  be  drawn  that  it  was  not  an 
advantage  to  us  to  have  that  trade.  The  question  is,  whether  snch 
trade  would  benefit  us  iu  fact,  and  not  whether  it  would  benefit  auy 
one  more  than  us.  It  cannot  be  laid  down  as  an  axiom  ol  political 
economy  that  a  trade  between  two  countries  which  benefits  one  more- 
than  it  does  the  other  is  an  injury  to  the  country  which  is  beuefited^ 
the  leaet. 

I  do  not  by  any  means  admit  that  cither  history  or  reason  teacb  ns 
that  a  reciprocal  trade  between  the  provinces  and  the  United  Statea> 
would  be  of  more  advantage  to  the  former  than  to  the  latter,  and  I 
think  that  the  converse  of  that  proposition  can  be  shown  to  be  trae,  or 
that  it  can  be  shown  that  no  system  ol  reciprocal  trade  cau  1m  de- 
vised which  will  not  be  of  less  advantage  to  us  than  to  them,  Stat 
still  I  submit  that  it  is  no  argnment  against  a  reciprocal  trade,  •▼aBi 
if  you  admit  it  to  be  true.  1  have  seen  a  boy  "  get  mad  "  and  ref  inm' 
to  take  any  because  he  could  not  have  the  biggest  part  of  the  apple ;: 
it  wonld  be  singular  to  see  a  nation  refuse  to  take  any  of  the  trade 
because  it  could  not  have  the  biggest  part.  The  boy  should  have  rec- 
ognized the  political  axiom  that  because  he  could  not  have  the  whole 
apple  it  was  injurious  to  him  to  take  any.  This  is  the  argument 
which  has  constantly  been  pressed  forward  by  those  who  believe  that 
the  idea  of  a  trade  with  Canada  is  so  delusive  that  it  is  not  even  worth 
investigating,  when  they  say  with  trinoaphant  iteration  that  a  trade 
with  the  provinces  will  do  them  more  good  than  it  can  accemplieh^  for 
us.  The  conclusive  reply  to  this  is  to  enter  a  demurrer  to  ihe  vropoe*- 
tion.  One  of  the  chief-justices  of  England  once  said  that  a  deuuirier 
meant  "  what  of  it  ?" 

This,  then,  is  the  question  to  be  investigated:  Can  any  syster*  of 
reciprocal  trade  be  devised  between  the  United  States  and  the  Do- 
minion of  Canada  which  will-be  an  advantage  to  our  country  f  All 
that  the  advocates  of  this  resolution  say  is  that  they  want  this  qiiee- 
tion  fully  investigated,  iu  order  that  Congress  and  the  people  may 
have  all  the  facts  before  them  to  enable  them  to  judge  intelligently 
in  so  im][iortant  a  matter.  All  that  the  opponents  of  this  resolu  tion 
can  say  is  that  they  desire  that  no  light  shall  be  thrown  upon  thi* 


qneHtion  ;  that  CoDgrew*  and  the  p«op1o  Hhiill  not  olttain  the  facts, 
ont  shall  be  kept  in  the  dark  and  away  from  any  anthentio  informa- 
tion ;  and  that,  ho  far  as  they  are  concerned,  they  will  refnse  to  allow 
any  information,  instrnotion,or  investigation  as  to  the  merits  of  this 
case.  Upon  what  ground  they  can  possibly  stand  in  maintaining  so 
extraordinary  (^  proposition,  I  am  nnable  to  conceive.  •( 

I  am  informed  that  a  distingnisbed  member  of  Congress,  a  most 
bitter  opponent  of  all  ideas  of  reciprocal  trade  with  Canada,  replied 
when  asked  abont  this  resohition,  "  Why,  of  course  we  can't  oppose 
»  resolution  for  information  an<i  inquiry  only ! "  And  it  seems  to  me 
that  all  members  will  come  to  the  same  conclnmon  who  will  only 
carefully  rea<l  and  cousidi-r  the  ett'eot  of  the  resolution  under  discus- 
sion. 

Will  gentlemen  state  what  there  is  in  the  resolution  that  is  objec- 
tionable ;  what  parts  of  it  are  open  to  criticiHm  f  It  may  be  divided 
into  two  parts ;  in  the  first  place,  that  which  provides  for  a  commis- 
sion to  consult  with  a  similar  commission  to  be  appointed  by  Qreat 
Britain  ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  that  part  which  provides  for  the 
object  of  the  commission,  namely,  to  consider  whether  uny  reciprocal 
trade  between  the  United  .States  and  the  British  provinces  can  be  ne- 
gotiated. Which  of  these  two  parts  is  objectionable  f  Will  any  one 
say  that,  if  the  question  of  the  possibility  of  the  establishment  of  re- 
ciprocal trade  is  worth  discussion,  it  is  improper  that  it  should  be  con- 
sidered by  a  Joint  commission  of  the  kind  proposed  by  the  re'^olution  T 
If  the  object  of  the  resolution  is  to  examine  the  subject,  and  it  is  de- 
sirable to  have  any  trade  at  all  with  Canada,  it  is  impossible  that  the 
objectionable  part  of  the  resolution  can  consist  of  the  subjects  being 
considered  by  a  commission  of  experts  who  may  gather  the  fullest 
information  possible  and  thus  help  to  educate  Congress  and  the  peo- 
ple. It  cannot  be  this  part  of  the  resolution  that  can  be  considered 
objectionable  by  any  member.  What,  then,  of  the  other  part  of  the 
resolution  which  provides  for  obtaining  information  as  to  whether 
any  reciprocal  trade  can  be  negotiated  with  Canada  f  Will  any  gen- 
tleman present  say  that  he  is  opposed  to  this  doctrine  of  mutual  trade 
on  principle,  and  from  its  foundation,  and  so  much  opposed  that  he 
does  not  wish  even  to  consider  the  question  f  Will  any  gentleman 
present  say  that  he  is  under  any  and  all  circumstances  opposed  to  any 
reciprocal  trade  with  Canada,  and  that  he  believes  all  commercial  in- 
tercourse should  be  cnt  otf  between  the  two  nations  f  Will  any  gen- 
tleman present  say  that  he  believes  that  by  years  of  retaliatory  tariffs 
all  the  great  trade  which  has  heretofore  existed  between  these  two 
countries  shall  be  absolutely  destroyed,  and  the  mercantile,  mannfaot- 
uriuff,  and  producing  industries  of  our  country  shall  be  injured,  to 
which  this  reciprocal  trade  has  been  heretofore  an  advantage  T  If 
gentlemen  present  take  this  broad  ground,  then  they  are  i)erfectly  con- 
sistent in  their  opposition,  and  can  legitimately  face  such  opposition 
upon  the  ground  that  the  second  part  of  the  resolution  is  objectiona- 
ble in  that  it  provides  for  an  investigation  of  the  question  whether 
there  can  bo  such  reciprocal  trade,  whereas  they  are  opposed  to  hav- 
ing any  reciprocal  trade  at  nil,  or  under  any  possible  circumstances 
which  the  commission  or  any  one  else  can  devise.  These  are  the  only 
two  answers  that  can  be  made  to  the  proposition  under  discussion, 
and  if  there  are  any  members  here  who  logically,  consistently,  and 
reasonably  can  occupy  either  of  these  two  positions,  I  should  like  to 
hear  from  them. 

Our  opponents  may  allege,  however,  that  the  subject  is  not  of  suf- 
ficient importance,  and  the  chances  of  benefit  under  the  resolution  or 


8 

in  oonsequeuce  of  reoiprooal  trade  with  Canada  great  enongh  to  ja«- 
tif^  U8  iu  going  to  the  trouble  and  expense  of  the  appointment  of 
this  commission.  This  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  a  legitimate  argument, 
and  I  shall  consider  these  two  allegations  hereafter  more  in  detail ; 
but  in  reference  to  them  let  it  be  remembered  that  all  we  have  to  do 
is  to  show  what  is  called  in  legal  phraseology  "  probable  oanae." 
When  they  allege  that  the  snbjeot  is  not  of  sufficient  importance,  or 
the  chances  of  benefit  sufficiently  great  to  even  justify  an  inquiry,  we 
are  only  obliged  to  show  that  the  probabilities  of  benefit  from  an  in- 
vestigation are  sufficiently  great,  and  not  to  go  beyond  this  and  dem- 
onstrate to  an  actual  certainty  that  the  desired  results  would  follow. 
If  the  latter  were  the  case  and  we  could  demonstrate  to  such  cer- 
taintv  that  a  reciprocal  trade  conld  and  should  be  established,  and 
by  what  means,  there  would  be  no  need  of  a  commission  at  all,  as  this 
is  the  very  subject  that  a  commission  is  called  upon  to  investigate. 
If  we  can  make  out  the  "  probable  cause ; "  if  we  can  show  by  the 
past  history  of  the  commercial  interoonrse  of  the  two  countries  and 
by  the  present  condition  of  affairs  and  by  the  probabilities  of  the 
future  that  there  is  reason  to  believe  there  is  a  chance  that  a  recip- 
rocal trade  in  some  way  or  other  can  be  established  which  ma^  be  of 
benefit  to  this  conntry,  then  it  is  our  duty  to  have  an  investigation 
made^  and  not  to  set  aside  and  lose  even  a  possible  chance  of  great 
benefits  being  secured  for  onr  country.  In  a  word,  we  need  not  dis- 
cuss the  question  itself  but  the  probabilities  of  the  question.  But  I 
think  I  shall  succeed  in  convincing  all  unprejudiced  minds,  open  to 
conviction  and  to  argument,  that  at  any  rate  this  subject  has  suffi- 
cient impuriauce  and  sufficient  probability  of  some  success  to  render 
it  unpatriotic,  unwise,  and  absurd  to  reject  this  resolution. 

II.— KECll'HOCITV  DOES  SOT  MEAV  FREE  TRADE. 

Nearly  all  the  arj^uments  against  the  resolution  or  the  idea  of 
reciprocity  which  I  have  heard  have  been  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  reciprocity  means  free  trade,  whereas  this  is  by  no  means 
true.  The  opponents  of  any  trade  with  Canada  assume  that  free 
trade  is  meant,  and  then  proceed  to  argue  against  it.  They  build  up 
by  ingenious  devices  and  at  great  pains  and  trouble  and  with  great 
skill  a  man  of  straw,  entirely  a  creature  of  their  imagination  and  of 
their  prejudices ;  and  then  they  proceed  to  a!  tack  him  with  great 
vigor  and  with  ingenious  arguments  and  with  statistics,  and  to  tear 
him  to  pieces.  They  construct  from  the  fertile  soils  of  their  fears 
an  imaginary  treaty,  such  a  treaty  as  they^  think  might  be  open  to 
objection,  and  with  all  kinds  of  articles  in  it  which  may  be  made 
legitimate  subjects  of  criticism ;  and  then  they  pick  this  imaginary 
treaty  to  pieces,  tearing  it  limb  from  limb,  with  cries  of  rejoicing, 
and  shout  out  to  Congress  and  their  constituents  that  they  have  de- 
stroyed all  the  ideas  of  reciprocity.  They  assume  that  the  humaiv 
mind  is  incapable  of  evolving  a  new  system  which  shall  not  be  in 
all  respects  free  trade,  and  that  it  is  beyond  the  mental  powers  of  a 
mercantile  community  to  devise  any  system  whatever  of  sending 
goods  to  and  f):o  across  the  border  which  shall  not  consist  in  wiping 
out  on  both  sides  all  duties  on  those  goods. 

The  present  idea  of  reciprocity  is  not  one  of  free  trade.  Advocates 
of  this  resolution  are  not  free  traders.  I  am  free  to  say  that  I  do  not 
believe,  at  this  stage  of  progress  in  this  country,  in  free  trade.  It 
may  come  when  we  can  manufacture  our  goods  and  produce  the  crops 
of  this  country  so  low  as  to  defy  the  competition  of  the  whole  world. 
And  when  we  arrive  at  that  point  at  which  England  arrived  many 


years  ago,  when  it  seemed  to  be  proved  that  her  labor  and  material 
were  so  low  that  no  other  oonntry  could  carry  them  down  to  a  lower 
point,  then  free  trade  may  turn  ontto  »e  an  ad  vantage  to  as  as  it  was 
an  ad  vantat^e  to  England  iu  many  respects.  We  cannot  now  compete 
in  all  directions  with  the  labor  and  sapplies  of  other  countries.  Our 
sreat  maniifactaring  and  producine  industries  are  the  life-blood  of 
the  nation.  If  these  are  injured  and  trodden  down,  not  only  are  all 
capitalists  of  the  country  injured,  (in  which  term  I  inolade  not  only 
those  popularly  known  as  capitalists,  but  the  widows  and  orphans 
and  poor  men  with  capital  invested  in  the  savings-banks  and  all  those 
who  otherwise  have  money  invested  in  these  manufacturing  enter- 
prises,) but  also  the  laboring-men  who  are  employed  in  all  ports  of 
the  oonntry  almost  wholly  in  work  which  is  only  carried  on  and  can 
only  be  carried  on  by  means  of  the  money  furnished  by  the  capital- 
ists of  the  country. 

It  is  foolish  iu  this  country  to  talk  about  the  contest  of  capital 
against  labor.  The  stocks  of  our  large  mills  are  to  a  great  extent  held 
by  poor  people — widows,  children,  and  poor  men  who  have  laid  up  a 
little  for  a  rainy  day  and  invested  it  in  stocks,  and  by  many  people 
in  general,  to  whom  the  loss  of  the  dividend  means  a  loss  of  the  com- 
forts and  necessities  of  life.  Our  labor  and  our  materials,  the  cost 
of  which  depends  on  the  cost  of  labor,  have  not  dropped  to  the  low 
point  to  which  they  have  sunk  in  foreign  countries.  When  onr  labor- 
ing-men, our  workers  in  the  mills,  our  toilers  on  the  farms,  and  our 
workmen  on  the  railroads  can  live  as  those  live  in  England — eat  meat 
only  once  a  week,  and  not  be  sure  of  that;  live  in  dirty  and  nasty 
hovels,  have  no  education,  and  have  neither  rest  nor  recreation,  men- 
tal or  otherwise,  will  toil  early  and  late,  and  give  up  all  eight-hour 
ideas  and  other  ideas  of  comfort  or  of  beuetit  to  theraselves,  then 
they  can  afford  to  work  at  tht  same  wages  paid  to  the  English  work- 
men, and  in  that  time  7e  can  compete  iu  the  markets  of  the  world 
with  the  English  manufacturers.  None  of  us  want  to  see  that  day 
come.  The  people  of  this  country,  in  my  opinion,  will  prefer,  as  a 
whole,  to  pay  a  few  cents  more  for  the  articles  which  they  eat  or 
otherwise  consume  thau  to  see  our  whole  laboring  population  leveled 
downward  to  the  condition  of  those  iu  European  countries.  Our 
laborers  themselves,  who  complain,  perhaps,  the  most  of  the  tariff,  if 
they  will  consider  this  question  and  reason  about  it  will  see  that  by 
the  removal  of  the  tariff  they  themselves  will  suffer  more  than  any 
other  class,  because  the  removal  of  the  tariff  would  make  one  of  two 
things  necessary  :  either  the  giving  up  of  all  our  manufacturing  in- 
dustries oi-  the  reduction  of  wages  to  a  point  which  will  enable  us  to 
compete  with  the  English,  Belgian,  French,  and  other  manufacturers. 

A  modification  of  the  tariff  is  uecessaiy  ;  its  wiping  out  is  unwise 
and  suicidal.  But  let  me  tell  the  high-tariff  men  and  those  who  be- 
lieve iu  the  protection  of  American  industries  that  it  is  wise  and  in 
the  interests  of  both  producers  and  consumers  that  some  wise,  sys- 
tematic, scientific,  and  well-considered  modification  of  the  tarifi' should 
be  made.  Aside  from  the  propriety  of  this  measure  at  the  present 
time  and  the  ^ood  results  which  it  will  have  upon  the  country,  an 
equitable  modification  will  save  the  tariff;  stubbornness  and  stupid- 
ity in  objection  to  all  reductions  of  the  tariff  may  destroy  it  utterly. 
By  damming  back  all  the  waters  of  the  rushing  stream  they  will  rise 
against  the  barrier,  fret  and  chafe  and  whirl  around  within  their 
narrow  boundaries,  constantly  re-enforced  by  fresh  currents  rushing 
down  from  above,  until  finally  the  force  of  the  angry  waters  becomes 
so  great  that  it  sweeps  away  utterly  all  the  dams  and  barriers  which 


10 

kepfp  tbem  back.  If  tliuse  who  are  interested  in  the  protection  by  a 
proper  tariff  ot  our  Auiericau  IndnstrieM  iibsolutely  refuse  to  treat 
with  those  who  look  toward  free  trade,  nfuse  to  consult  with  them 
noDcerniug  any  reduction  at  all,  and  insist  on  maintaining  the  tariff 
at  the  highest,  iignres,  they  will  dam  back  the  force  of  public  opin- 
ion, which  will  gathur  and  ^row  and  increase  in  force  and  in  angry 
vehemence  until  it  will  rise  to  a  point  when  it  may  sweep  away  all 
the  barriers  and  utterly  destroy  the  tariff.  I  woulcf  suggest  to  those 
who  are  inclined  to  oppose  this  resolution  that  this  doctrine  may 
apply  to  them,  and  that  it  will  be  well  for  them  to  consider  whether 
it  is  not  best  now  to  have  a  commission  to  consider  these  questions 
fairly,  impartially,  and  patiently,  rather  than  to  run  a  risk  at  some 
future  time  of  some  reciprocal  trade  with  Canada,  which  may  be  a- 
scheme  of  free  trade,  rushed  through  by  hot-headed  impulses  and  by 
crude  and  unconsidered  laws. 

PKE8ENT  IDEA  OF  BECIPROCITY  IS  NOT  OF  FREE  TBAHB. 

What  we  mean  by  reciprocity  is  simply  this :  that  there  is  at  the 
least  a  chance  that  a  reciprocal  trade  may  be  established  with  Can- 
ada which  shall  benefit  both  countries,  while  it  may  protect  by  its 
proper  tariff  any  peculiar  industries  of  either  country  which  shall 
need  protection.  There  are  soiqe  things  that  Canada  wants  to  sell 
and  that  we  want  to  buy,  and  there  are  other  things  that  we  want 
to  sell  and  Canada  wants  to  buy ;  and  the  question  is,  whether  mat- 
ters may  not  be  so  arranged  between  the  two  countries  that  those 
goods  may  be  in  some  way  transferred  which  both  countries  desire 
to  have  transferred.    For  example,  both  countries  will  agree  on  this 

EropoKition  :  that  it  is  for  the  interest  of  our  country  that  we  should 
ave  tlie  right  of  fishing  in  Canadian  waters,  and  It  is  for  the  inter-' 
est  of  the  Canadians  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  sell  their  fish  in 
our  markets,  and  that  their  vessels  should  be  allowed  to  have  what 
they  can  get  of  our  carrying  trade.  The  question  in  regard  to  this 
subject  to  be  investigated  is  whether  it  is  possible  to  meet  the  wishes 
of  both  coantries.  It  may  be  impossible,  but  certainly  it  is  worth 
while  to  make  the  trial  and  find  out  whether  it  is  not  within  the 
powers  of  the  human  mind  to  make  some  satisfactory  mutual  arrange- 
ment. I  only  use  this  as  an  illustration  at  the  present  time,  as  I  shall 
refer  to  this  fishery  question  hereafter. 

There  are  some  thin^  proposed  which  cannot  be  agreed  upon  be- 
tween the  two  countries,  but  those  things  we  can  leave  out.  The 
question  will  be,  is  there  not  some  common  ground  upon  which  the 
two  countries  can  stand,  some  common  trade  upon  which  the  two 
countries  can  agree,  and  which  shall  be  for  their  mutual  benefit  f  Is 
not  full  protection  of  our  interests  compatible  with  some  trade  with 
Canada  f  And,  if  so,  with  what  branches  of  trade  ?  Here  is  a  part  of 
the  vast  question  which  this  commission  will  settle :  To  look  over  the 
whole  ground,  to  look  to  the  fishery  interest,  the  lumber  interest,  the 
manufacturing,  the  iron,  and  the  agricnltural  interests  of  onr  country, 
to  keep  their  eyes  on  the  East  and  West  and  South,  to  consider  Maine, 
Massachusetts,  and  Michigan,  and,  having  looked  over  this  vast  field 
to  see  if  in  concert  with  the  Canadian  commissioners  it  cannot  pick 
out  something  which  can  be  agreed  upon,  and  at  least  some  of  these 
great  interests  which  will  be  benefited  by  a  commercial  union  of  some 
kind  with  Canada — this  is  the  duty  of  the  commission.  The  com- 
mercial interests  between  these  countries  have  been  of  vast  ext«nt. 
Can  anything  be  done  to  help  them,  or  shall  we  abandon  them  in  de- 
spair and  proceed  to  cut  each  other's  throats  in  all  political  and  tariff 


■ways?  Here  is  tlie  (inestion  which  confronts  us,  unrl  it  is  of  special 
importaure  at  the  preseut  tiuie,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter.  Let  one 
thin^;  be  fully  nuderstood  in  all  discussions  of  this  kind,  that  the  in- 
terests of  our  country  are  to  be  fully  protected,  no  matter  what  the 
sacritlce  shall  be  to  Canada,  and  that  the  first  object  we  have  in  this 
resolution  is  to  endeavor  to  beuetit  the  manufacturing  and  producing 
industries  of  this  country. 

TMR  FOIIMEII  nKClPROCITY   TIIEATY   WAS  XOT   FOR  FIIF.E  TRAt'E. 

I  shall  describe  more  particularly  hereafter  what  the  provisions  of 
the  former  reciprocity  treaty  were.  The  opponents  of  all  ideas  of 
reciprocal  trade  constantly  argue  that  the  proposed  resolution  looks 
toward  a  treaty  identical  with  the  former  treaty,  and  then  proceed 
to  argue  tliat  the  former  treafy  was  for  free  trade  and  therefore  o])- 
posed  to  all  our  ideas  of  a  tariff  for  either  revenue  or  protection.  It 
18  sufficient  to  say  under  this  heading  of  my  argument  that  only  cer- 
tain specified  articles  were  admittecf  under  that  treaty  free  of  duty, 
and  these  may  be  broadly  described  as  mostly  natural  articles,  and 
generally  in  a  crude  or  unwrought  state.  They  were  mo.stly  produc- 
tions of  the  soil  or  animal  productions.  In  regard  to  the  most  of 
these  the  United  States  could  compete  with  Canaaa  on  equal  grounds, 
as  the  results  of  the  treaty  and  the  statistics  of  the  time  it  was  in 
operation  prove.  The  manufacturing  industries,  the  coal  and  oil  in- 
terests, and  various  other  mercantile  interests  of  the  country  were 
not  affected  either  in  one  way  or  the  other,  and  in  fact  the  treaty  had 
DO  operation  whatever  upon  any  articles  or  branches  of  trade,  except 
those  expressly  specified,  which  were  comparatively  very  few  in 
number.  So  that  the  operations  of  the  treaty  were  exceedingly  lim- 
ited in  extent.  The  framers  of  that  treaty  only  picked  out  certaiu 
articles  of  trade  which  they  thought  might  be  made  free  ;  all  others 
■were  untouched.  On  the  consideration  of  the  treaty  hereafter,  it  will 
therefore  be  seen  that  the  argument  against  this  resolution  as  tend- 
ing toward  a  free-trade  treaty  is  entirely  fallacious  and  falls  to  the 
ground. 

THIS  KKSOLUTIOS  18  NOT  ONE  FOB  TUB  OLD  BECU'ROCITY  TREATY. 

Here  again  the  arguments  of  the  opponents  of  this  resolution  ut- 
terljr  fail ;  they  proceed  to  argue  at  great  length  against  the  old  reci- 
procity treaty ;  they  assume  that  the  new  treaty,  if  any  is  to  be  made, 
must  be  the  same  as  the  former  treaty,  whereas  there  is  no  connec- 
tion whatever  between  tLis  subject  and  the  old  treaty.  Even  if  they 
prove  that  the  old  treaty  was  aa  injury  to  this  country,  which  I  am 
prepared  to  deny,  their  argument  is  utterly  worthless  in  this  discus- 
sion. They  have  no  right  to  assume  that  the  new  treaty  will  be  the 
same  as  the  old  treaty,  or  that  it  will  even  be  founded  upon  the  old 
treaty  as  a  basis.  Some  of  the  evil  efiects  of  the  old  treaty  have 
been  recognized,  and  it  is  incredible  that  they  will  be  restored  in  the 
new  treaty.  This  question  is  now  taken  up  as  an  entirely  new  one, 
and  the  subject  is  to  be  investigated  by  this  commission  as  a  new 
subject,  with  all  the  light  thrown  upon  it  during  all  the  years  elaps- 
ing since  the  expiration  of  the  former  treaty,  and  by  the  operations 
of  the  former  treaty.  The  difliculties  of  the  old  treaty  are  to  be  con- 
sidered by  the  commissior:,  tliC  evils  of  it  avoided,  and  out  of  all  the 
materials  made  ready  for  their  hand  by  the  experience  of  so  many 
years,  they  are  to  try  to  find  something  with  which  they  can  build 
up  a  new  and  unobjectionable  treaty. 

It  is  useless  to  argue  now  whether  such  a  reciprocal  treaty  has  been 
or  can  be  of  benefit  to  the  country,  or  to  argue  for  or  against  the  re- 


12     ■■ 

suits  of  the  appointment  of  this  oommission.  There  is  no  possibility 
of  foretelling  the  resnltii  of  a  commission.  For  all  that  we  know,  it 
may  tum  out  to  be  an  anti-treaty  commission,  and  may  demonstrate 
that  no  reciprocal  treaty  of  an>  kind  can  be  made  between  the  two 
conntries.  The  opponents  of  this  resolation  might  in  fact  favor  it 
on  their  oWn  assunaptions,  and  on  those  assumptions  their  only  log- 
ical position  would  be  to  so  favor  it.  Why  do  not  they  iVason  in  this 
way,  and  crystallize  such  reasons  into  votes :  that  they  desire  a  oom- 
missioD  to  be  appointed,  because  it  is  abuolutely  certain  that  there 
can  be  no  reciprocal  treaty  between  these  countries,  and  that  a  com- 
mission will  be  sure  to  so  report;  and,  therefore,  they  wish  to  use 
the  influence  of  the  report  of  this  commission  to  finally  and  thoroughly 
crush  out  all  idea^  of  a  reciprocal  treaty  with  this  country.  For  all 
that  this  resolution  now  shows,  it  may  be  iu  point  of  fact  regarded 
npon  the  arguments  of  the  anti-treaty  men  as  an  anti-treaty  resolu- 
tion. Therefore  upon  any  doctrine  it  seems  impossible  that  any  one 
can  o£Fer  any  opposition  to  the  adoption  of  this  resolution. 


III.— IB  CANADA  WOBTII  TREATINO  WITHl 

This  is  a  legitimate  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  resolution.  Oar  op- 
ponents may  say  that  Canada  is  not  worth  treating  with  under  any 
circumstances;  that  she  is  of  very  small  importance,  almost  worth- 
less; that  her  exports  exceed  her  imports,  so  that  she  has  not  any 
trade  worth  anything  to  supply  ;  that  the  same  may  be  true  of  her 
special  trade  with  the  United  States,  so  that  under  no  circumstances 
shall  We  find  a  market  in  that  country,  while  she  will  find  a  market 
iu  this  country.  If  all  this  is  true  and  is  demonstrated  as  a  fact,  there 
may  be  iiu  need  of  a  commission.  It  is  undeniable  that  it  is  not  worth 
while  investigating  a  worthless  subject,  and  if  our  opponents  can 
show  to  us  in  the  commencement  of  this  investigation  that  the  ques- 
tion of  a  commercial  treaty  with  Canada  is  a  worthless  subject,  that 
there  is  no  trade  there  to  seek,  that  there  is  no  importance  there  either 
in  a  commercial  or  other  view  to  be  found,  that  Canada  is  a  frozen 
country  of  the  North  without  any  goods  to  sell  that  can  benefit  us, 
and  without  any  money  to  buy  which  can  go  into  the  pockets  of  our 
merchants,  manufacturers,  and  farmers,  then  the  question  is  ended, 
and  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  with  the  delay  and  expense  and 
trouble  of  a  commission.  Our  opponents  will  not  be  so  foolish  as  to 
formulate  such  ideas  in  such  a  way,  and  7  et  such  an  argument  would 
be  almost  their  only  one  against  the  resolation,  and  is  in  substance 
used.  Canada  is  of  great  importance  in  a  commercifjl  point  of  view, 
either  as  regards  her  location,  area,  population,  shipping,  transporta- 
tion, general  commerce  of  the  world,  or  the  special  commerce  of  the 
United  States,  and  I  ask  the  attention  of  the  House  to  a  consideration 
of  the  question  of  her  importance  in  these  respects,  for  I  am  sure  it 
is  not  understood  or  appreciated,  except  by  those  who  have  made  a 
special  investigation  of  the  subject. 

LOCATION  OF  THE  DOMIMON  OF  CANADA. 

The  location  of  Canada  in  reference  to  the  United  States  is  worth 
being  considered  in  regard  to  this  question  of  whether  we  could  or 
should  have  any  trade  with  her.  Here  is  a  great  country  stretching 
across  the  continent  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  separated 
from  us  mostly  by  imaginary  boundaries,  with  the  most  intimate  re- 
lations between  the  two  countries,  with  a  border  which  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  have  thoroughly  gnarded,  and  with  peoples  who  are  neignbors 
in  language,  sentiments,  and  to  a  great  extent  in  commercial  inter- 


eats.  The  boundary  between  the  Eastern  States  and  the  Dominion 
consists  of  small  rivers  and  mostly  of  imaginary  lines.  Then  come 
the  boundaries  between  the  Dominion  and  this  country  of  the  Saint 
Lawrence  and  the  great  lakes,  and  beyond  the  lakes  the  only  bound- 
ary is  the  imaginary  one  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel.  Nearly,  if  not 
quite,  one-half  the  whole  boundary -line  between  the  countries  is  an 
imaginary  one  existing  only  on  the  maps.  The  railroacl  connections 
between  the  two  countries  are  most  intimate.  Many  of  our  great 
railroads  connect  with  the  West  by  Canadian  connections.  Their  rail- 
road systems  mostly  connect  with  foreign  countries,  and  with  the 
ocean  by  roads  within  our  boundaries.  The  water  communications 
by  canal  and  lake  are  similarly  intimate.  All  the  vast  commerce  of 
our  great  lakes  only  reaches  without  transshipment  the  ocean  through 
the  Canadian  territory.  Witli  a  country  thus  situated,  contiguous 
to  ours,  with  intimate  connection  of  rail,  of  canal,  and  all  other  water 
communications,  we  should  havefriendly  commercial  relations  if  pos- 
sible. A  constant  commercial  war  between  the  two  countries,  the 
endeavor  to  see  which  country  can  injure  the  other  the  most,  this  con- 
stant smuggling  across  the  border  and  trying  on  the  part  of  either 
country  to  break  up  the  commercial  relations  of  the  other  is  to  bo 
avoided  by  all  meanscompati'tle  with  the  true  interests  of  this  country. 
The  countries  touch  each  other  at  every  point.  Our  railroads  re^h 
out  into  her  all  along  the  line.  We  can  supply  her  morecheaply  than 
any  other  nation  if  we  have  an  opportunity.  England  must  send 
her  ffoodsacross  a  wide  ocean  to  Canada,  paying  the  charges  on  freight, 
while  we  can,  within  twenty-four  hours,  and,  in  cases  where  there  is 
direct  connection  between  commercial  centers,  within  twelve  hours, 
place  our  goods  in  Canada  ready  for  delivery  and  use.  The  mere 
difference  in  ocean  freightage  would  give  us  the  markets  of  Canada 
in  preference  to  foreign  countries,  |)rovided  the  Canadian  markets 
can  be  thrown  open  to  us  on  just  and  equal  terms,  and  xuch  as  for- 
eign countries  enjoy.  Especially  at  the  present  time  is  our  connec- 
tion with  Canada  of  importance  in  securing  her  trade  if  possible. 
The  Dominion  formerly  extended  only  to  the  eastern  end  of  the  great 
lakes  ;  now  it  is  pushing  itself  forward  across  the  continent.  It  is 
building  up  just  across  the  border  from  us  its  territories,  which  are 
becoming  settled  throughout  those  sections  of  the  country.  It  is 
opening  up  settlements,  and  before  tifty  years  we  may,  perhaps,  see 
the  southern  borders  of  Cauada  nearly  as  thickly  settled  as  the  adja- 
cent northern  borders  of  our  country.  Tliis  question,  then,  looking 
at  it  from  the  point  of  view  of  location  alone,  of  hostile  or  harmo- 
nious, of  reciprocal  or  adverse  trade,  of  helping  each  other  or  fight- 
ing each  other,  is  a  question  of  great  importance  and  cannot  well  be 
exaggerated.  In  the  case  of  a  country  like  France,  which  has  also 
been  desirous  of  reciprocal  trade,  these  considerations  will  be  wholly 
eliminated.  Either  as  to  the  "  favored-nations"  clause  in  treaties  or 
otherwise,  the  position  of  Canada  is  utterly  different  from  what  that 
of  any  other  country  can  be.  No  other  country  has,  or  can  possi- 
bly have,  the  same  comparative  value  to  us  in  regard  to  this  question 
of  reciprocal  trade,  and  any  basis  upon  which  reciprocal  trade  with 
Canada  will  be  established  must  be  on  the  ground  of  its  peculiar  con- 
nection with  and  relations  to  us,  and  entirely  independent  of  reasons 
which  might  apply  to  any  other  country. 

AHEA  OF  THE  DOMINION. 

The  Dominion  of  Canada  comprises  the  entire  region  embraced  be- 
tween the  northern  boundary-line  of  the  United  States  and  the  Arctic 


14 

Ocean,  with  the  exceptions  of  Alaska  and  the  islands  of  Greenland 
and  Nenrfonndland.  It  includes  the  territories  formerly,  and  in  some 
instances  at  present,  known  as  Upper  and  Lower  Canada,  Nova  Sco- 
tia, Cape  Breton,  Prince  Edward  Island,  New  Brunswick,  Manitoba, 
Brttish  Columbia,  VanoouTer's  Island,  and  the  Northwest  Territories. 
The  area  is  estimated  at  3,580,310  square  miles. 

The  following  table  shows  the  area  in  square  miles  of  provinces  in 
British  North  America : 


Ontario 107,780 

Quubeo 193,355 

l5<)vaSootla 91,731 

Nuw  Brunswick 97,333 


Prince  Edward  laUnd 3,100 

Newfoundland 49,000 

Manitoba 14,000 

Brltisli  Columbia 356,000 


The  following  tabular  statement,  compiled  from  the  census  of  1871, 
shows  the  quantity  of  land  owned,  occupied,  and  improved  iu  each 
of  the  provinces  named  therein : 


Provinces. 

Owned. 

Occupied. 

Improved. 

Ontario 

Acres. 

19, 605,  019 

17,  701,  .589 

6,  453, 969 

6, 607, 4.59 

Aerea. 

16, 161, 676 

11, 09.5,  786 

3,  897,  731 

5, 031, 317 

Aerei. 
8.  833, 696 

Quebec 

5, 703, 944 

Irew  Brunswiclc 

^ova  Scutia - 

i,  171. 157 
1, 637, 091 

Total 

49, 368, 039 

36, 046,  410 

17,  .335, 818 

POPULATIO>f  OF  THE  DOMINION. 

The  following  table,  showing  the  population  of  the  United  States 
and  British  North  America  for  the  years  therein  named,  may  be  found 
interesting,  as  showing  not  only  the  comparative  population  of  the 
two  countries,  but  also  their  comparative  growth  since  the  first  dec- 
ade before  the  beginning  of  the  present  century.  It  will  be  seen 
that,  starting  from  the  population  of  1790  as  a  standard,  the  popula- 
tion of  the  Dominion  has  increased  in  about  an  equal  ratio  with  that 
of  the  United  States,  and  that,  iu  other  words,  as  to  the  United  States, 
the  population  of  the  Dominion  was  about  as  large  proportionallv  in 
1871  as  in  1791 : 


United  SUtes. 

British  Nortli  America. 

Year. 

Population. 

Year. 

Population. 

1790 

3, 996, 914 

5, 3C8,  483 

7, 939, 881 

9,  6;i3,  892 

19,  866, 090 

17, 069, 453 

93, 191, 876 

31,  443, 391 

38,558,371 

1791 

379,000 
349,  (100 
479,000 
790  000 

1800 

1801 

1810 

1811 

1891 

1890 

1830 

18:U 

1, 300, 000 
1, 656,  700 
8, 487, 855 
3, 394, 654 

1840 

1841 

1850 

1860 

1851  

1861 

1870 

1871 

3, 730, 774 

Including  Indians,  British  North  America  contained  3,833,133  per- 


15 


(SODS  in  1871.    The  foUowinK  table  shows  the  population  of  the  prov- 
inces named  therein  for  1851,  18B1,  and  1871 : 


Karnes  of  provinoes. 

Popalatiod. 

1851. 

1861. 

1871. 

OntArio ..-.- 

953, 004 
890,361 
876, 854 
193,800 
63,678 
103,600 

1, 396, 091 

1,111,566 

330,  857 

859,047 

80,857 

188,850 

1, 607,  873 
1  184  538 

Qaebeo .*.... 

Nova  Scotia 

New  Brnnawtok .... 

386,134 
864  101 

93,6S8 

146,536 

Manitoba 

13,338 

British  Colombia 

10,38« 

Thus,  whether  you  look  at  the  great  area  of  the  Dominion,  the  in- 
habited and  cultivated  and  productive  portions  of  which  are  increas- 
ing from  year  to  year,  or  at  her  population,  which  keeps  equal  pace 
in  its  increase  with  that  of  oar  own  country,  it  will  be  found  difficult 
for  the  opponents  of  this  resolution,  as  against  these  facts  aloue,  to 
shuffle  this  question  aside  with  the  sneer  that  Canada  does  not 
"  amount  to  an'ytbing  " — that  her  trade  cannot  benefit  us  in  any  way, 
and  that  we  do  not  want,  commercially  or  otherwise,  to  have  any- 
thing to  dc  with  her. 

SHIFFINQ  AND  TBANSPORTATION  OF  THE  DOMINION. 

Statement  nhowin^  the  number  and  tonnage  <4  vetieln  buUt ;  also  the  total  number  and 
tonnage  of  saiUng-vemeU,  canal-boats,  and  barges  owned  by  the  United  Stateii  and 
Canada  in  the  years  therein  given. 


1874. 


United  States : 

Number  of  vesseU  built 

Tonnage 

Total  number  of  Teasels  owned. 
Total  tonnage  owned 

Domioionof  Canada: 

Number  of  vessels  built 

Tonnage 

Total  number  of  vessels  owned . 
Total  tunuage  owned 


8,147 
432, 785 


496 

190,  756 

6, 9.10 

1,  LW,  3f.3 


1875. 


l,3ill 

S97, 6:)8 


480 

151,012 

6,959 

1,  205,  565 


1876. 

1,113 

303,  5S5 

25,  934 

4,279,458 

420 

130, 901 

7,198 

1,360,893 

1677. 


1,029 

176,  591 

25,386 

4, 242, 599 

43'] 

127,  2!)7 

7,3Ca 

1,  3t0,  468 


Of  the  provinces,  Nova  Scotia  owneil  541, S7fl  tons;  New  Brunswick,  3*.i9, 4.57  j  Que- 
bec, 348,309;  Ontario,  131,761 ;  Prince  Ed^vard  Island,  55,547;  British  Columbia  and 
Manitoba.  3,735  tons. 

When  compared  with  the  leading  maritime  nations  of  Europe,  these  oompara- 
tivoly  young  onuutiies  occup,v  an  iniportaut  position  in  rojjanl  to  merchant  ship- 
ping, Hfl  th«  following  statistics  show : 

In  1877  the  tonnage  of  Great  Britain.  incluiliDg  her  colonies,  was  7.677,021 ;  Nor- 
way, 1,391,877;  Italy,  1,360,425;  Germany,  1,0.53,229;  and  France,  870.205  tons.  These 
figures  do  not  incliine  the  inland  tonnage  of  the  sailing-vessels  of  these  nations,  or 
01  steamers  under  one  hundred  tons  register,  or  barges. 

The  United  States  take  rank  as  thesttcond;  and  we  feel  safe  in  placing  Canada  as 
fifth  among  the  ship-owning  countries  of  the  world. 

In  the  provinces,  the  drst  rallwiiy  opened  was  in  Canada  proper,  in  1847.  In  1861 
British  North  America  bad  2.162' miles  constructed;  and  in  1876  the  aggregate 
number  of  miles  of  railroad  owned  by  the  Dominion  of  Canada  was  5,494,  ezo  Insive 
of  double  track. — The  United  Slates  and  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  by  Alexander 
Mnnro,  esq.;  Saint  John,  New  Brunswick,  1879. 

As  was  stated  by  J.  C.  Bates,  esq.,  of  the  Boston  Board  of  Trade, 


16 


in  a  very  valuable  arffiiineut  on  this  subject  before  the  Committee  on 
Fore.gn  Aifaira  of  the  House — 

To-day  in  tho  mntter  of  tonnnco  Cannda  has  onp-nixth  of  the  tonnagn of  the  Brit- 
ish Empire.  lu  1)^77  the  Canadian  tonuaue  wafi  1,310.468  tona  ;  the  tonnage  of  the 
Biitigh  Enitilre  7,667,094,  and  that  of  the  UuaedStateB,  exclusive  of  the  lalies  and 
rivers,  9, 564. 980  tons.  • 

As  an  intlication  of  its  transport  trade  in  .me  direction  alone,  the  tonnage  pass- 
ins  the  Welland  Canal  in  18*7  was  1,916,659  tons,  and  the  Saint  Lawrence  canals 
1,341,156  tons. 

OKNBRAl.  COMHBROR  OF  THB  DOMINION  OP  CANADA  WITH  OTIIBR  COUSTIIIRS. 

This  question  is  especially  pertinent  in  this  discusBion,  for  the  rea- 
sons V  )iich  I  have  stated.  If  Canada  has  a  great  general  oommerce 
it  cert  II  inly  is  useful  to  ns  to  consider  how  wh  uiay  obtain  a  fair  share  of 
thatcmnmerce  in  competition  for  it  with  other  nations  of  the  world. 
But  il  such  commerce  of  Canada  is  insijjniflcnnt,  we  need  not  pay 
any  a1  lention  to  the  question  of  how  to  obtain  a  share  of  it.  Any  one 
who  will  consider  the  facts  and  flgnres  in  relation  to  this  branch  of 
the  su))ject  cauuot  fail  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  commerce 
of  Canada  is  large  and  growing,  and  that  we  cannot  afford  to  set  it 
aside  us  insignificant  and  allow  it  to  be  monopolized  by  other  nations 
to  our  exclusion,  if  by  any  means  compatible  with  our  interest  a  fair 
share  at  least  of  it  may  be  obtained  for  this  country.  I  think  any 
man  unfamiliar  with  the  snbject  and  investigating  it  in  an  unpreju- 
diced way,  and  with  a  desire  for  information,  will  be  surprised  at  the 
importance  not  only  of  the  general  commerce  of  Canada  with  other 
oountiies,  but  of  the  special  commerce  of  Canada  with  the  United 
States.  Her  commerce  is  large  and  gron-ing.  It  will  increase  as  her 
territory  tills  up,  and  it  is  as  hard  to  tell  what  the  Dominion  will  be 
£fty  years  from  now  as  to  prophesy  what  the  United  States  will  be 
as  to  it«  extent  of  cultivated  laud,  its  industries,  and  its  population. 
Let  it  always  be  remembered  in  the  present  discussion  ot  this  ques- 
tion that  the  only  point  is  whether  •(Lis  subject  is  of  suflflcient  im- 
portance to  investigate.  We  maintain  that  we  have  made  out  our 
case  if  we  show  that  the  commercial  importance  of  Canada  is  of  so 
great  extent  as  to  justify  us  in  the  appointment  of  a  commission  to 
consider  it  and  its  bearing  upon  the  interests  of  our  country.  The 
following  table  gives  some  indication  of  the  commerce  of  the  Domin- 
ion of  Canada  from  1872  to  1878,  and  of  its  importance  : 

'fahle  of  imports  and  exports  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada. 


Tear  ending  June  30— 

Exports. 

Imports. 

Excess  of  im- 
ports   over 
exports. 

1872 

1873 

$89, 630,  r>63 
89,  789, 989 
89,351,998 
77,  886, 979 
80, 966, 435 
75,  S7\  393 
79, 393, 667 

$111,  430,  597 

188,011,281 

128, 213, 5H2 

123,070.383 

93, 810, 346 

99, 387,  969 

93,081,787 

138,790,864 
38. 891, 359 

1874 

38, 861, 659 

1875 

45, 183, 304 

1876 

13, 343, 911 

1877 

3.1,  453,  569 

1878 

13, 758, 180 

Total 

900, 51),  786 

It  will  be  seen  by  this  table  that  the  annual  aggregates  of  the 
exports  and  imports  of  the  Dominion  are  very  large,  and  that  every 
year  the  imports  into  Canada  were  very  largely  in  excess  of  the  ex- 


,.    ■  '     17 

porta.  Canada  hiiM  ulwajin  bought  more  tliau  she  has  sold.  She  has 
been  a  piirobaHer  to  a  much  larger  extent  than  she  has  been  a  seller, 
and  thus  she  comes  into  the  markets  of  the  world,  not  upon  the 
whole  as  a  seller,  trying  to  take  away  from  other  countries  their 
markets  and  to  compete  with  them,  but  as  a  buyer,  with  money  in 
her  pockets  to  speud  for  the  purchase  of  goods  for  the  use  of  her  peo- 
ple. I  believe  that  even  on  a  small  scale  the  traders  are  much  more 
anxious  to  make  the  acquaintance  of  buyers  who  oome  to  them  to 
spend  money  for  goods  than  that  of  those  who  desire  to  sell,  and  it  is 
a  question  with  us  whether  we  cannot  afford  to  make  some  terms  with 
Canada  as  a  buyer  every  year  of  a  very  large  amount  of  articles  prin- 
cipally for  domestic  use.  For  every  year  in  the  preceding  table  there 
is  shown  a  large  excess  of  imports  over  exports.  The  largest  excess 
was  in  1875,  and  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $45,183,304  ;  and  the  small- 
est excess  was  in  187G,  and  amounted  to  $1'2,243,911 ;  and  the  total 
excess  of  imports  over  exports  for  tlie  seven  years  from  1872  to  1878 
amounted  to  the  onormons  sum  of  ^200,511,786.  Canada,  then,  is  cer- 
tainly to  be  regarded  as  a  purchiwer— and  a  very  large  purchaser — 
in  the  markets  of  the  world. 

As  was  stated  by  Munro  in  the  book  hereinbefore  quoted,  referring 
to  the  last  table,  "  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  Dominion  imports  are 
comparatively  large  according  to  population,  being  one- fifth  that  of 
the  United  States,  while  her  exports  are  only  about  one-ninth  of  the 
latter  country.  Hence,  what  is  called  the  balance  of  trade  is  largely 
against  tbe  Dominion.  In  tlie  three  years  named  in  the  table,  the 
excess  of  imports  amounted  tu  j;i)9,000,000,"  Canada,  then,  has  to  an- 
nually buy,  according  to  the  average,  goods  to  the  value  of  some- 
where from  193,000,000  to  Jll2H,0(X),000,  a  large  part  of  which  are  man- 
ufactured articles.  The  question  is,  where  shall  she  buy  them  and 
how  much  of  that  trade  can  we  get  f  Shall  we  set  it  all  aside  as  not 
worth  striving  for  and  allow  it  to  go  to  Euglivud,  France,  or  other 
nations,  or  endeavor  by  all  proper  means  to  secure  a  fair  portion  of  it 
for  our  con  ntry  ?  The  natural  market  of  supply  for  Canada  is  clearly 
in  the  United  States.  The  disadvantages  of  trade  with  England  are 
the  delay  in  obtaining  goods  and  tbe  consequent  uncertainty  of  the 
state  of  the  Canadian  markets  when  the  goods  shall  arrive,  the  im- 
possibility of  personal  inspection  of  those  goods  before  purchase,  the 
increased  cost  by  reason  of  insurance,  aud  the  cost  of  ocean  freight- 
age ;  all  these  disadvantages  give  to  the  United  States  the  power  of 
controlling  to  a  large  extent  the  purchasing  trade  of  Canada,  provided 
we  can  have  equal  terms,  or  terms  not  so  unequal  as  to  balance  the 
increase  of  cost  of  obtaining  goods  from  foreign  countries.  Here  is 
this  great  country  with  this  great  purchasing  power,  just  across  our 
borders,  connected  with  us  by  most  intimate  connections  of  rail  or 
water  all  along  the  line.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  question  of  obtain- 
ing our  share  of  this  great  trade  lyiug  at  our  very  doors  is  worth  care- 
*ful  and  full  consideration  1  Is  a  purchaser  of  goods  to  the  value  of 
$200,511,780  over  and  above  what  she  sells  in  seven  years  worth  try- 
ing to  secure  by  honorable  and  fair  means!  1  put  this  question  on 
the  practical  ground  of  commercial  expediency,  England  has  been 
called  a  nation  of  shopkeepers  aud  is  said  to  look  out  for  the  almighty 
dollar. 

It  may  be  of  advantage  to  us  to  consider  ourselves  a  nation  of  shop- 
keepers, and  to  treat  these  questions  from  the  point  of  view  of  com- 
mercial usefulness  and  fiuaucial  gain,  rather  than  from  the  point  of 
view  of  mere  political  expediency,  or  of  hatred  or  prejudice  against 

2   BO 


18 

onr  Canadian  neighbors.  Shall  we  have  intercourse  with  that  coun- 
try, or  allow  a  thick  barrier  to  be  built  up  between  the  two  nations, 
shutting  us  out  from  her  great  trade  and  shutting  her  out  from  ours  T 


erRCIAI,  COMMERCE  IlETWEEN  THE  DOMINION  AND  TUB  UNITED  STATES. 

I  have  shown  the  great  general  commerce  of  Canada  with  foreign 
coantries,  and  the  above  question  of  her  special  importance,  as  trad- 
ing with  the  United  States,  is  worth  careful  consideration.  If  history 
and  figures  and  statistics  are  to  be  believed  and  are  productive  of 
information,  the  magnitude  of  this  special  question  can  hardly  be 
appreciated  and  is  little  understood.  The  following  table  shows  the 
extent  of  this  special  commerce  during  the  years  therein  stated : 

Commtrcc  of  the  United  SMes  with  Dominion  of  Canada  and  other  British 
Xorih  American  poswntiiona. 


raded 

30— 

Exports. 

mporta 
ports. 

'  ^  a 

—  M 
_  * 

•i  S 

Domestic. 

Foreign. 

Total. 

|1 

1851 

to  OfiO  .187 

13  954  ^^36 

113,014,933 

t6  693  122 

1859 

6, 655  097 

3,  85;),  919 

10, 509, 016 

6,110,399 
7,  550,  718 

1853 

7, 404, 087 

5,736,555 

13, 140, 643 

1854 

15, 304, 144 
15, 830, 643 

9, 362, 716 

34, 566, 860 

8, 937, 560 

1855 

11,999,378 

87,806,030 

15, 136,  734 

1856 

23, 714, 697 

6, 314, 653 

39, 029, 349 

31,310,421 

1857 

19, 936, 113 
19, 638, 959 

4, 326, 369 
4. 018, 768 

34, 363,  468 

22, 184, 296 

1858 

83, 651, 727 

15,  806,  .519 

1859 

81, 769, 687 

6, 384, 547 

88, 154, 174 

19, 727, 551 

147,  881, 735 

1860 

18,  «67, 429 

4, 038, 899 

33, 706, 338 

23, 851, 381 

46,  557, 7119 

1861 

18,883,715 

3, 861, 898 

33, 745, 613 

23, 062,  933 

45,  808, 546 

1663 

18, 653, 012 

2, 437, 103 

81,079,115 

19, 299,  995 

40,  379, 110 

1863 

28,629,110 

3, 651, 980 

31, 381, 030 

34, 081, 264 

55,  303, 894 

1864 

86, 567, 831 

8, 419, 936 

38, 987, 147 

38,  983, 015 

67, 909, 168 

1865 

30,033,883 

1, 809,  863 

31,843,145 

37, 308,  468 

69, 150, 613 

1866 

26,874,888 

3, 481, 684 

29,  356,  573 

54, 704, 959 

84, 061, 531 

1867 

80, 548, 704 

.3,774,465 

34,  333, 169 

33, 604, 178 

57,  937,  347 

1868 

83,600,717 

8, 661, 555 

36, 363, 278 

30, 362, 221 

56,  634,  493 

1860 

30, 891, 786 

3,  305, 446 

24,197,232 

32,090,314 

56,387,546 

1870 

22, 570, 439 

4,378,885 

26,  f49,  324 

41, 089, 801 

67, 939, 135 

1871 

29, 790, 894 

4,711,838 

34, 502, 726 

37,  424,  351 

71, 987, 077 

1878 

27, 774, 091 

4,984,989 

38, 759, 080 

40,961,432 

73, 730, 513 

1873 

34, 368, 811 

4, 303, 745 

38, 578, 556 

43, 809, 070 

83, 381, 686 

1874 

43, 505, 914 

4, 589,  343 

47,095,157 

38, 158. 004 

85, 853, 161 

1875 

34, 309, 761 

3, 986, 770 

38, 396, 531 

32, 763, 870 

71, 060, 401 

ltn'6 

33,583,831 

3, 477,  716 

37, 060, 947 

30, 930, 607 

67,991,554> 

1877 

38, 131, 706 

3,698,030 

40,829,728 

36, 046, 090 

66, 875, 818 

18T8 

35,740,494 

3,355,349 

39, 095, 843 

87,971,191 

67, 067, 034 

For  the  term  of  twenty  years,  from  1859  to  1878,  the  total  imports 
and  exports  between  the  Unit«a  States  and  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
amounted  to  $1,282,106,384,  the  total  exports  being  $625,996,689  and 
the  total  imports  $656,109,695.  I  call  the  attention  of  tne  House  to 
the  fact  th^t  these  figures  only  apply  to  the  special  trade  between 
the  United  States  and  the  Dominion  of  Canada.    The  following  table 


10 


showfi  tLe  excess  of  exiiorts  over  imports,  and  the  reverse,  from  IBTil 

to  1^78 : 


Yrar. 

Excess  of  exports 
from  tbe  United 
States  to  Can- 
ada  over   im- 
ports. 

Excess  of  imports 
into  tbe  United 
SutesfrtMu  Can- 
ada   over    ex- 
ports. 

1851 

15,381,801 

4,  3nH,  717 

5,  580, 1184 

15, 630,  :ioo 

19,  66!l.  386 
7,  718,  l»88 
a.  138, 1H6 

7,  845,  808 

8,  483, 683 

ISVJ    

18,'i3 

18.'i4     

1H!55 

1856 

1857 

18,18 

lew 

18rt<) 

il,  145.053 

IfeMl     

317, 3S0 

]8tl8 

1. 779, 180 
7, 859, 760 

1863 

1864 

9,934  868 

1HR5 

5,  466, 323 

1866  

25, 348. 387 

1B67 

U,  381, 009 

1868 

4, 099, 949 

1869 

7, 893, 082 

1870 

14, 340, 477 

1871 

9, 981. 645 

1078 

8, 305, 358 

1873 

5, 836, 514 

1874  

8,  937, 153 

5,638,661 

6, 130, 340 

14, 783, 638 

11,184,658 

1875 

1877 

185,308,303 

94, 189, 979 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  table  that  dnring  the  years  when 
there  was  an  excess,  the  excess  of  imports  into  the  United  States 
from  Canada  over  exports  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $94, 18t),i)79,  while 
the  excess  of  exports  from  the  United  States  to  Canada  over  the  im- 
ports for  the  years  stated  amounted  to  $125,308,303 ;  so  that  the  bal- 
ance in  favor  of  the  United  States  dnring  this  term  of  twenty-eight 
years  as  an  exporter  of  goods  rather  than  an  importer  araonnted  to 
$31,118,324.  The  great  magnitude  of  this  question  becomes  at  once 
apparent  on  a  study  of  there  tables,  and  demonstrates  that  it  is  not 
tone  decided  superficially,  hastily,  or  on  account  of  prejudice,  but 
only  after  the  most  careful  investigation.  It  is  apparent  that  the 
normal  condition  of  trade  between  the  United  States  and  Canada  is 
that  Canada  should  be  a  buyer  rather  than  a  seller  and  that  the  bal- 
ance of  trade  should  always  be  against  her.  Under  natural  oondi- 
tions  this  is  always  the  case,  and  it  is  onl^  when  annatural  condi- 
tions come  in  to  disflhrb  that  balance  that  it  tnms  against  us  and  in 
favor  of  Canada.  From  1851  to  1859  the  balance  of  trade  was  largely 
and  invariably  against  Canada ;  then  in  1860  and  1861  she  had  a  com- 
paratively small  balance  in  her  favor,  while  in  1862  and  1863  the 
balance  came  again  in  our  favor.    From  1864  to  1873  the  balance 


20 

(anil  in  hoiiio  yonrs  to  n  vflryliirnoextent)  turned  in  fiivorof  CanRfbi, 
while  ninoe  1873  tlie  balance  lias  been  vnry  lar{;t)ly  in  our  favor, 
anionutinK  in  1877  to  the  siun  of  $14,7«;»,('>:W. 

I  say  that  the  normal  condition  of  trade  makoH  a  balance  in  our 
favor,  and  a  balance  u)j;ainHt  im  may  be  directly  tnicod  to  unuHual  cou- 
ditionn  of  trade.  The  regular  balance  ngaiiiHt  uit  coniineuced  in  1HU4, 
and  the  reanon  is  eany  to  underHtand.  A  groat  rine  in  the  price  of 
goods  and  of  labor,  the  inimenBe  conHuni]ition  of  articles  in  this  coun- 
try, the  enorniouH  intlation  of  prices,  the  turning  of  hundreds  of  thuu- 
Bands  of  raou  into  consuuierH  inutcad  of  ]iroducerH,  the  great  waste 
of  material,  and  all  the  usunl  results  of  war,  combined  to  carry 
up  our  goods  to  a  ])rice  at  which  Canada  could  not  aiTord  to  pur- 
chase. Canada  remained  in  a  state  of  peace;  her  wages  were  not 
much  increased;  her  conimerco  was  not  interfered  with,  and  she 
could  att'ord  to  manufacture  goods  and  create  natural  productions  at 
a  price  which  would  give  her  a  groat  profit  by  selling  to  the  United 
States.  The  natural  condition  of  alt'airs  could  not  have  been  other- 
wise, and  the  proof  is  shown  from  the  tables.  When  jur  afl'airs  began 
to  return  to  tneir  normal  condition,  and  the  communities  ha«l  set- 
tled down  to  the  natural  works  and  industries  of  peace,  and  the  gold 
premium  had  disappeared,  and  business  began  once  more  to  be  on  a 
tlrm  and  stable  specie  basis,  then  tra<le  began  to  How  into  its  old 
and  natural  channels,  and  the  balance  of  trade  with  Canada  began 
1  ran  steadily  in  our  favor. 

A  farther  proof  that  the  natural  condition  of  trade  with  Canada 
is  a  balance  in  our  favor,  is  the  conclusive  argument  that  Canada 
must  buy  somewhere  more  than  she  sells  ;  that  somewhere  or  some- 
how she  mnst  buy  every  seven  years,  according  to  the  average  from 
1672  to  l878j  goods  amounting  in  value  to  $'200,.511,7HU  more  tTian  she 
sells.  And  it  is  a  further  self-evident  proposition  which  needs  only 
to  be  veritied  by  an  inspection  of  the  maps,  that  this  is  her  natural 
market  to  buy  in.  In  other  words,  there  must  always  be  a  great  trade 
in  our  favor,  except  under  unusual  circumstances,  provided  we  can 
have  a  fair  chance.  I  have  shown  that  there  is,  then,  a  natural  and 
great  general  trade  to  be  obtained  by  us  from  Canada,  and  I  desire 
for  a  ^w  moments  to  refer  only  to  the  special  products  of  that  trade, 
and  the  special  articles  which  we  have  heretofore  sold  to  Canada  iu 
large  amounts. 

Munro,  iu  his  said  book,  page  111,  writes  as  follows  in  regard  to  the 
coal  trade : 

In  1877  the  proprtntorn  of  coal-mlnns  in  Xova  Sootin  petltionod  Parliament  to  im 
pose  a  duty  on  cnal  imported  into  tlie  Dominion.  Tiio  amount  Canada  imported 
trom  tlie  United  States  in  that  year  was  780,696  tons,  including;  415,g6ft  tons  of 
anthracite  and  20.032  tons  of  coke.  The  whole  was  valued  at  (3,170,154  ;  wliile  the 
exports  of  coal  to  the  United  States  only  amounted  to  178,772  tons,  worth  |e81),663. 
So  far  as  known  there  is  nu  anthracite  coal  in  the  lower  provinces,  henco  the  im- 
portatiooN  of  this  class  of  coal  into  the  Dominion  are  very  large.  Even  Nova  8cotia 
and  Now  lirunswick  imported  antliracite  coal  from  the  United  States  to  the  value  of 
$137,363  in  1877.  Of  the  iinportiitious  Ontario  imported  coal  from  the  United  States 
amonntiuc;  to  623,187  tons,  valued  at  $2,506,244,  and  Quebec  lSi>,0U7  tons,  worth 
•510,550. 

I  quote  also  the  following  from  Munro's  book : 

T'ie  United  States  coal-ilelds  are  immense  ;  much  larger,  it  is  said,  than  those 
of  r.ll  the  w(nld  put  tojjuther.  A  well-inforuuHl  writer  says :  "  There  are  two  hun- 
dred thousand  sqnare  miles  of  ooal-Iands  in  the  country,  ten  times  as  much  as  in 
all  the  remaining  world."  Between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Kocky  Mountains  her 
coal-Uelds  are  scattered  here  and  therein  all  directions;  and  near  the  Pacific  coast 
she  has  abundance  of  coal. 

And  the  means  of  transit  by  rivers,  lakes,  canals,  and  railroads  are  so  wide- 
spread that  both  the  States  and  the  Domiuion  can  be  readily  supxdled. 


Oiitaiiii  liiui  to  (li'|i«u(l  upon  tlio  rutou  fur  nil  livr  con) ;  nnil  tlin  (Mnvi-lniid  nntl 
Et  jo  KnilcoiKlH  liavi>  liroiii;lit  >{<>iitri<Al  nml  ollinr  imrtHof  Cmmilu  into  iu<ar  conneo- 
tlon  with  tho  Hiitliiai^ito  coal-HulilH  of  tlio  Unitml  H(at«H. 

And  Hgnin,  an  followH,  oh  to  the  triulu  in  breadHtufFH: 

Hut  tbfli'O  in  Aiiotliur  Hide  to  tlie  Hul>|»ct.  Ontario  linH  Hour  to  hi-II,  iinil  t)in  lower 
provlnc.i'H  of  tlio  Diiinlnlon  aiu  piircliaHiirM  of  l)i oiulHtii ttVt  from  tliu  Uuitnl  Statoii 
to  thu  valiio  of  |I,87H,146. 

Heiiiu),  If  Ontario  liaH  to  pay  a  duty  on  coal,  It  would  only  bo  fair  play  to  protect 
lier  l)r(ia<lNtiin'H  by  InipoHlii):  li  duty  (in  ini|inrtatlnnH  from  tbu  Stati<H,  wliieh  duty 
tlie  nuirttlmv  provlncoH  would  liiivo  to  pay  Into  lliti  ('anadinn  triMwury. 

In  lr<77  tbu  Uunilnlon  imported  wbvat,  Hour,  rnm,  and  nipal  of  all'  klndit  to  the 
valuK  of  ti:i.'^U«.''H4  :  of  tbffi  tlin  value  of  tl3,lins,IMri  wm  from  th»  United  Slitten. 
Of  thlH  lar^e  uninnnt  the  wheat  Imported  waH  valued  at  I^I.UU-i.TH:),  and  Indian  corn 
at  #3,a;)il,8(14.  In  the  throe  yearn  pruvlou*  to  lf7H  the  Dominion  imported  wheat, 
wheat  Hour,  porn,  and  corn'moni  to  the  value  of  |:t(i,01H.7-J7,  or  an  averaneof  twelve 
mlllionN  of  dollai'H'  worth  pt^  iinnum,  and  exported  of  lireadHtiiirit  to  the  value  of 
#.'l'l.33'i.4n4,nr  eleven  and  a  naif  inillbrndollarH  worth  per  annum.  Kut  a  lari(e|iart 
of  the  ('anailliin  exports  conHisted  of  barley,  oatH,  peane.  and  beumi,  valued  at 
#7,438,7012.  In  IhlH  year  Ontario  exporte<l  of  theno  and  other  coatHe  grains  to  the 
value  of  |.'i,4'j:i,774.  Of  barley  alone  Hhe  exported  H,U4'.2,<l3'.i  buHhelH ;  and  Imported 
of  breadHtutfrt  from  tho  States  to  tho  value  of  ♦2,!Wt!,.5«.'5  more  than  she  exported. 

The  year  previous  to  tlie  Dominion  tariff  of  1874  we  exported  to 
Canada  l,lKM,il45  gallons  of  petroleum  aooording  to  the  Canadian  re- 
tunm  of  iinportH.  An  stated  hy  Mr.  Bates,  in  hix  argument  before  re- 
ferred to,  "  our  exports  to  Canada  up  to  the  time  the  tariff  went 
into  operation,  in  breadstiiffs  alone,  were  some  ten  to  twelve  million 
dollars  per  annum;  in  sugars,  some  four  millions,  and  in  coal,  some 
three  millions  of  dollars."  A  few  other  articles  or  items  of  our  trade 
with  Canada  may  be  referred  to,  taken  from  the  statement  of  trade  for 
1879.  In  that  year  we  sold  to  Canada  agrionltural  implements  worth 
#127,447  only,  according  to  the  imperfect  returns  made  to  the  Treas- 
ury Department,  but  of  the  value  of  ^227,745,  as  more  correctly  given 
by  the  tratle  accounts  of  the  Dominion  customs.  We  made  also  the 
following  sales,  namely :  3;S5,210  tons  of  anthracite  <>ad  1U5,542  tond 
of  bituminous  coal  to  Canada,  according  to  our  Treasury  statement, 
but  408,827  tons  and  3iK),65li  tons,  respectively,  according  to  theCaua- 
dian  returns ;  $21,24.3  in  brooms  and  brushes ;  $103,579  in  carriages, 
carts, &c. ;  l,381,8:{:iponndsof  cordage;  $l:i8,()52in drugs,  &o. ; $146,295 
in  fancy  articles;  $3,3:)8,777  in  iron  and  iron  articles,  more  than  one- 
fourth  of  our  whole  sales,  Canada  being  om  best  customer ;  $158,851 
in  India  rubber,  &o.;  $142,982  in  leather, and  $299,04!lin  mannfacturea 
of  leather ;  over  9,000,000  pounds  of  unmanufactured  cotton  ;  4,700,000 
bushels  of  breadstnffs ;  355,975  barrels  of  wheat  flour ;  7,293,275  bushels 
of  Indian  corn ;  2,219,315  bushels  of  oats ;  3,500,000  pounds  of  bacon 
and  hams;  12,7.50,000  pounds  of  pork  ;  12,408  bushels  of  onions,  and 
8,.')00,000  pounds  of  tobacco.  These  are  a  few  of  the  articles  in  which 
we  have  a  special  trade  with  Canada.  Next  to  our  trade  with  Qreat 
Britain  is  that  of  Canada,  and  Canada  trades  more  with  us  than  with 
any  other  country. 

As  was  stated  by  Mr.  Bates  in  his  argument,  "  of  the  imports  in  1877 
$37,000,000  came  from  Great  Britain,  $48,000,000  from  the  United 
States,  and  $8,300,000  fn)m  all  other  countries.  It  will  thus  be  seen 
that  much  the  larger  amounts  of  the  imports  made  by  Canada  were 
from  the  United  States,  and  that  the  importance  and  magnitude  of 
this  question  cannot  well  be  exaggerated.  Of  all  the  exports  of  Can- 
ada in  1877,  for  example,  $45,500,000  went  to  Great  Britain,  while 
only  $25,000,000  went  to  the  United  States,  and  $9,000,000  to  all  the 
other  countries." 

According  to  the  Report  on  Commerce  and  Navigation  for  the  year 
ending  June  30, 1879,  our  trade  with  the  Dominion  of  Canada  ranks 


22 

at)  tli«4  fifth  iu  the  HhI,  and  amounted  to  $30,843,702  in  exports  and 
$2(),133,544  iu  imports,  making  a  total  commerce  with  Canada  for  the 
year  of  if5(;,9T7,256,  or  4.9*2  per  cent,  of  the  whole  foreign  commerce 
of  the  United  States.  The  value  of  the  commerce  with  Canada  was 
only  inferior  to  that  with  Great  Britain,  France,  West  Indies,  and 
Germany,  and  exceeded  that  with  Brazil, China,  Italy, Russia,  British 
East  Indies,  Japan,  Turkey,  or  Mexico,  and  was  very  greatly  in  ex- 
cess of  most  of  them. 

Let  it  also  be  remembered  that  correct  tables  would  make  the  ag- 
gregates of  exports  from  the  United  States  to  Canada  much  larger 
than  the  above  amounts,  and  would  materially,  and  in  some  years 
perhaps  wholly,  change  the  apparent  balances  against  us  to  our  favor. 
The  Canadian  accounts  show  much  larger  aggregates  of  our  exports 
to  Canada  than  do  our  accounts.  The  reason  is  easy  to  understand. 
Our  authorities  do  not  keep  accurate  accounts  of  goods  sent  across 
the  border,  as  it  is  of  no  pecuniary  interest  to  them  to  do  so.  It  is 
not  the  exports  but  the  imports  that  we  get  a  revenue  upon.  Hence 
uien  may,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  take  goods  across  the  border 
without  any  reference  to  entries  or  custom-houses. 

Here,  for  exam])le,  is  an  account  taken  from  the  Commerce  and 
Navigation  Report  of  the  United  States  for  1879,  showing  the  diii'er- 
ence  between  the  accounts  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  as  to  the 
exports  from  this  country  into  the  provinces  of  Quebec,  Ontario,  and 
Manitoba,  for  year  ended  June  30,  1879 : 

ExportH  iuto  Slid  provinces,  as  per  Cannilian  accounts , 837, 935,  n22 

Expoi'ta  Into  said  proviucus,  as  per  United  States  accounts 24,  Tfiti,  41? 

Here  in  one  year  is  a  difference  of  $13,157,504  between  the  accounts 
of  Canada  and  the  United  States. 

I  take  the  following  from  the  United  States  Commerce  and  Navi- 
gation Report  for  187G : 

TRADE  WrrU  CANADA. 

Diiiinstbe  year  endeil  June  30,  1870,  the  total  value  of  domestic  merchandise 
and  produce  exported  to  Canada,  and  which  was  omitted  in  tlie  returns  of  the 
United  States  customs  ofUcers  on  the  Canadian  border,  as  appears  from  the  ofllcial 
statements  furnished  by  the  commissioner  of  customs  of  the  Dominiim,  amounted 
to  110,507,563.  as  against  $lS,5nr),.524  in  the  preceding  year,  and  |ll,4-J4,.5(i8  in  1874. 

I'he  following  statement  shows  the  character  of  the  articles  exported  to  the 
provinces  of  Ontario  and  (iuobec  during  the  last  fiscal  year,  of  which  no  returns 
were  made  to  this  bureau  from  the  United  States  collectors  of  customs  on  our 
northern  border: 

B'.atement,  (uxording  to  Canadian  aeeountt,  showing  the  importg  into  Canada  from 
the  United  States  in  except  of  the  domettic  exports  from  the  United  Statesto  CaiiMia, 
as  returned  to  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  by  United  States  collectors  of  customs,  mir- 
ing the  fiscal  year  ended  Jwxe  30 , 1 876. 

Blacking 111,394 

B  joks,  pamphlets,  maps,  and  other  publications 345, 8.54 

Brass  and  copper,  manofactnres  of S38,  .500 

Bricks 14,8.53 

Brooms  and  brushes  of  all  kinds 86,913 

Carriages,  carts,  and  parts  of 102, 128 

Cars,  railroad,  passenger  and  freight 21,598 

Clocks,  and  parts  of,  (IncludinK  watches) 1.51,  436 

Coal 538,508 

Cordage,  rope,  and  twine  of  all  kinds 32,538 

Cotton,  manufactures  of '. 1,593,285 

Drugs,  chemicals,  and  medicines 60,904 

Dye  stuffs 85,768 

Fancy  articles 268,320 

Fruits 60,264 

Furs  and  fur-skins.' 31,975 

Gas-fixtures  and  chandeliers 42.791 

Jewelry  and  other  manufactures  of  gold  and  silver 63. 008 


23 

Hair,  and  mauiifactures  of 130,976 

Hats,  caps,  and  bonuetn  346,869 

Hides  and  skins,  other  tliau  fiir 728,695 

ludia-rnbbnr  and  gutta-perclia  mannfactarea , 82, 969 

Iron  and  steel,  and  manufactures  ol: i S,  22),  947 

Leather,  and  manufactures  of 158, 153 

Boots  and  shoes 110,466 

Musical  instruments : 

Organs,  melodeons,  &c. 81, 448 

Piano-fortes,  and  all  other 225,696 

Naval  stores 11,943 

Oils: 

Mineral 34,733 

T^  hale  and  other  flsh 84,959 

Linseed  11,186 

Ordnance  stores,  gunpowder —  28,187 

Paints  and  painters'  colors. 63,777 

Paintings  and  engravings 45,739 

Paper  and  stationery 279,833 

Printing-presses  and  type 87,959 

Provisions : 

Fish,  including  oysters 410,688 

Potatoes  and  other  vegetables 73,108 

Rags  71,883 

Seeds,  clover,  timothy,  garden,  and  all  other 10,906 

Sewing-machines,  anil  parts  of 41,966 

Spirits  of  turpentine 24,317 

Tobacco,  and  manufactures  of  : 

Leaf 75,519 

Cigars 17,179 

Snuff',  and  other  manufactures  of 19,434 

Varnish 28,096 

Wine 16,498 

Wool,  raw  and  fleece Ici9, 512 

Wool,  manur'actures  of  349,439 

All  articles  not  enumerated : 

All  other  manufactured  articles 541, 139 

A 11  other  unmanufactured  articles 363,467 

Total 10,507,563 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  greater  portion  in  value  of  these  articles  exported  to 
Canada,  of  which  no  official  returns  are  made  to  this  bureau,  consists  of  manufact- 
ures of  cottnu,  wool,  iron,  copper,  &c.,  which  require  in  their  production  the  em- 
ployment of  no  inconsiderable  amount  of  capital  and  skilled  labor.  Where  such 
important  interests  are  involved  it  lit  highly  desirable  that  our  accounts  of  exports 
shall  show  as  completely  as  is  poi^.tihle  the  amount  and  character  of  the  surplus 
produce  and  manufactures  sent  out  of  the  country,  and  the  exact  amonnts  taken 
1)y  each  country.  Especially  Is  it  iiupurtant  that  in  all  legislation  aifecting  our 
friendly  business  intercourse  with  Canada  our  accounts  of  commercial  exchanges 
with  that  country  stiall  be  of  such  a  character  as  to  furnish  a  safe  guide  to  ynao 
legislation,  instead  of  being  liable  to  mislead,  as  they  now  may  by  reason  of  their 
incompleteness. 

In  the  reports  for  the  fiscal  years  1874  and  187,5  attention  was  directed  to  this 
subject  and  the  defective  legislation,  which  rendered  it  almost  if  not  quite  impossi- 
ble to  obtain  full  and  accurate  statements  of  our  exports  to  Canada  piinted  out. 
As  no  legislation  has  since  taken  place  providing  a  remedy  for  this  defect,  the  un- 
dersigned again  respectfully  but  earnestly  requests  that  the  facts  already  sub- 
mitted be  brought  to  the  attention  of  Congi-ess  at  the  ensuing  session,  and  that 
legislation  lie  asked  for  extending  to  railroad  cars  and  other  land  vehicles  passini; 
from  the  United  States  iuto  ad,iaceut  foreign  territory,  requirements  in  regard  to 
the  filing  of  lists  or  manifests  of  their  lading  similar  to  those  now  provided  ny  sec- 
tion 337  of  the  Bevised  Statutes  with  respect  to  vessels  clearing  for  foreign  coun- 
tries. 

Will  it  bfl  arfiued  that  the  subject  is  not  of  sufiSoient  importance 
for  iuvestigation  f 

IV.— DID  THB  FCRHEB  TREATY  BENEFIT  VBI 

[ii  regard  to  this  resolution  the  favorite  arganient  contra  is  that  the 
forinef  treaty  was  au  injury  to  us,  and  therefore  we  do  not  wish  to 
hear  anything  further  of  a  commercial  treaty  with  Canada.    This 


24 

arcnnient  is  not  pertinent  here  and  bas  not  the  sligliteat  weight  or 
retevancy,  as  no  one  bas  ever  expected  or  claimed  that  the  new  treaty 
shonld  be  the  same  as  the  old  one.  It,  however,  is  pushed  with  so 
mnch  persistPTicy  that  it  is  worth  our  while  to  inqnire  into  the  state- 
ment and  see  if  there  is  any  foundation  for  it. 

WHAT  THE  FC'BMEU  TREATY  WAS. 

The  old  reciprocity  treaty,  so  called,  was  made  between  the  United 
States  and  the  government  of  Oreat  Britain  June  5,  18.'i4,  and  was 
terminated  March  17,  18(jti,  under  notice  given  by  the  United  States 
March  17, 18C.5,  pursuant  to  article  5  of  the  treaty.  The  principal  ob- 
ject and  result  of  the  treaty  was  the  settlement  of  the  fishery  qnes- 
tion,  which  unfortunately,  however,  proved  to  be  no  settlement  of  it 
at  ail.  It  gave  to  the  fishermen  of  the  United  States  liberty  to  fish 
on  the  sea-coast  and  shores  and  in  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  the 
Doninion,  with  permission  to  land  for  the  parpose  of  drying  nets  and 
oaring  fish.  The  principal  part  of  the  treaty  had  reference  to  fishery 
qnestiona,  but  article  8  is  as  follows : 

Abticle  hi. 

It  U  agreed  that  the  articles  enumerated  in  the  schedule  hereunto  annexed, 
being  the  crowth  and  produce  of  the  aforesaid  British  colonies  or  of  the  United 
States,  shall  be  admitted  into  each  country  respectively  free  of  duty : 

Sehedtile.— Grain,  flour,  and  breadstum,  of  all  kinds;  animals  of  all  kinds: 
fresh,  smoked,  and  salted  meats ;  cotton,  wool,  seeds,  and  vegetables ;  undried 
fmits,  dried  fruits ;  fish  of  all  kinds ;  products  of  iish  and  of  all  other  creatures 
living  in  the  water ;  poultry,  eggs,  hiaos,  furs,  skins,  or  tails,  undressed ;  stone 
or  marble,  in  its  crude  or  unwronght  state ;  slate,  butter,  cheese,  tallow,  lard, 
horns,  manures ;  ores  of  metals,  of  all  kinds ;  coal ;  pitch,  tar,  turpentine,  ashes  ; 
timber  and  lumber,  of  all  kinds,  round,  hewed,  and  sawed,  unmannfaotuied  in 
whole  or  in  part ;  firewood ;  plants,  shrubs,  and  trees ;  pelts,  wool ;  iishoil ;  rice, 
broom-corn,  and  bark ;  gypsum,  ground  or  unground ;  hewn  or  wrought  or  un- 
wrought  burr  or  grind  stones ;  dye-stuffs ;  flax,  hemp,  and  tow,  unmanufactured ; 
unmanafactured  tobacco ;  rags. 

It  has  been  said  in  the  argument  against  this  resolution  that  the 
object  of  this  treaty  was  to  force  the  annexation  of  Canada  or  to  lead 
up  to  annexation.  The  immediate  object  of  the  treaty,  on  the  con- 
trary, was  the  settlement  of  the  interminable  questions  of  the  fishery 
dispntes.    The  preamble  of  the  treaty  was  as  follows  : 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  being  equally  desirous  with  Her  Majesty 
the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  to  avoid  further  misunderstanding  between  their  re- 
specuve  citizens  and  subjects  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  right  of  flshiag  on  the 
coMtM  of  British  North  America,  secnred  to  each  by  article  1  of  a  convention  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Oreat  Britain,  signed  at  London  on  the  30th  day  of 
October,  181R ;  and  being  also  desirous  to  regulate  the  commerce  and  navigation 
between  their  respective  territories  and  people,  and  more  especially  between  Her 
Hi^esty's  possessions  in  North  America  and  the  United  States,  in  such  manner  as 
to  render  the  same  reciprocally  beneficial  and  satisfactory,  have  respectively  named 
plenipotentiaries  to  confer  and  agree  thereupon — that  is  to  say. 

On  account  of  the  commercial  relations  between  the  two  oonntries 
and  the  desire  of  our  fishermen  to  fish  in  British  waters,  and  of  Cana- 
dians to  sell  fish  in  onr  country  free  of  duty,  and  in  order  to  foster 
and  build  up  a  trade  between  the  two  oonntries,  and  to  promote  ami- 
cable relations  between  them,  this  treaty  was  made.  It  was  made 
purely  for  commercial  purposes  and  because  the  mercantile  interests 
of  the  country  demanded  it.  The  treaty,  by  its  provisions,  was  to 
remain  in  force  for  ten  years  from  the  date  on  which  it  was  to  go  into 
operation,  and  afterward  either  of  the  high  contracting  parties  could 
t«rminate  it  by  a  notice  of  twelve  months  to  the  other  of  its  wish  to 
terminate  the  same.  Taking  advantage  of  this  clause,  the  treaty  was 
terminated  as  hereinbefore  stated.  The  question  will  be  asked  why, 
if  the  treaty  worked  well  and  it  was  desirable  to  have  commercial 


25 

relatiouB  with  Canada,  there  should  have  been  any  toroiiuation  of  it  f 
Vario.  i  causes  oontribiited  to  its  repeal.  One  reason  was,  as  stated 
by  Hon.  Elijah  Ward,  member  of  Congress  from  New  York,  in  a  speech 
delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  May,  1876,  when  he  said 
that  it  (the  treaty)  "  was  for  several  years  mutually  satisfactory, 
but,  under  the  pressure  of  debt  and  the  need  of  increased  revenue, 
the  Canadians  raised  the  duties  on  manufactured  goods  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  destroy  its  natural  effects  in  promoting  the  many  brauohes 
of  industry  of  onr  people." 

The  treaty  only  applied  to  natural  productions,  and  the  raising  of  a 
tariff  on  manufactured  goods,  thus  excluding  them  to  a  considerable 
extent  from  Canadian  markets,  was  a  great  cause  of  the  discontent 
of  our  people.  Still,  the  principal  moving  cause  of  the  mpeal  of  that 
treaty  was  undoubtedly  our  feeling  of  hatred  against  Canada.  The  atti  - 
tude  of  Canada  toward  our  people  during  the  civil  war  cannot  be  either 
apologized  for  or  satisfactorily  explained.  As  a  nation,  their  feel- 
ings were  against  us  and  with  our  enemies,  and  where  we  had  ex- 
pected the  brotherly  sympathy  of  our  neighbors  across  the  border, 
we  found  only  hostility  and  harsh  criticism.  On  account  of  their 
attitude  and  actions  a  just  feeling  of  indignation  grew  up  among 
onr  people,  which  culminated  finally  in  the  abolition  of  the  treaty 
as  one  means  of  cutting  off  communication  with  them  and  of  punish- 
ing them,  as  was  desired,  for  their  action. 

I  take  the  following  extract  from  the  said  speech  of  J.  C.  Bates, 
esq.: 

Its  commorcial  bearings  were  not  recognized  at  all.  It  was  shown  conclnslvely 
that  the  balance  of  tra<lo  and  tl;e  baliince  of  advantage  in  the  workings  of  the 
treaty  were  not  against  the  United  States.  It  is  enough  to  say  tliat  they  prtxluced 
no  Impression  npon  the  minds  of  those  who  songut  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty. 
One  ot  the  cousideratious  whiuU  manifested  itself  at  almost  every  stage  of  the  pro- 
ceedings had  reference  to  the  conduct  of  the  Canadian  aathorities  and  Canaaian 
people  daring  onr  civil  war. 

Two  extracts  from  the  CoDgressional  GrIobe.wiU  illustrate  what  I  mean.  On  the 
11th  of  December,  1864,  the  day  following  that  on  which  the  vote  adverse  to  the 
treaty  was  taken  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives,  a  member  who  had  been  absent 
rose  and  asked  for  permission  to  record  his  vote,  when  the  following  conversation 
took  place : 

"  llr.  Stkvens,  of  Pennsylvania.  I  would  like  to  inquire  whether  It  is  trne  that 
the  Canadian  authorities  have  discharged  all  the  rebels  whose  cases  have  been 
under  investigation } 

"  Mr.  Wabhiiuunr,  of  Illinois.  It  is  so  stated  In  a  dispatch  from  Toronto. 

"Mr.  Stkvbn'B.  Then  I  hope  that  all  gentlemen  who  vote  against  the  bill  will 
change  their  votes,  and  make  the  passage  of  the  bill  unanimous." 

When  the  resolution  was  reported  back  to  the  Senate  by  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Kelations,  Mr.  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire,  spoke  against  it,  as  follows : 

This  is  a  step  that  the  Senate  ought  not  to  take,  and  particularly  ought  they  not 
to  take  it  under  an  excite<l  state  of  feeling  which  exists  now  in  consei^uence  of 
what  we  conceive  to  be  a  great  wrong  inflicted  on  us  by  the  authorities  ot  some  of 
those  provlnceB  that  are  particularly  affected  by  this  treaty.  I  know  that  when 
this  treaty  was  negotiated,  when  the  reciprocity  principle  was  established,  it  was 
looked  npon  by  the  enlightened  statesmen  of  this  country  and  of  England  as  an 
advance  in  the  social  progress  of  society,  and  as  a  step  in  tne  onward  march  which 
should  nndo  the  shackles  of  commerce,  and  give  greater  liberty  and  greater  prog- 
ress to  commercial  interooarse  between  this  country  and  those  provinces.  •  *  * 
The  nation  is  about  to  retrace  its  well-considei-ed  steps  from  a  position  which  it 
took  go  long  ago ;  and  at  whose  instance  ?  X ot  at  the  instance  of  the  Committee 
on  Commerce,  although  the  commercial  interests  are  those  that  are  to  be  most 
vastly  affected  by  it.  Not  at  tlie  suggestion  of  the  Committee  on  Finance,  from 
which  it  shonld  have  been  appropriately  advised,  if  the  real  reason  for  the  measure 
was  the  one  that  was  hinted  at  by  the  honorable  Senator  [Mr.  Sumner] — that  the 
treaty  ought  to  be  abrogated  at  a  time  like  this,  when  we  are  looking  about  us  to 
find  subjects  of  taxation  to  replenish  and  to  aid  our  exhausted  Treasury. 

"  If  that  was  the  ground  on  which  this  resolution  was  placed,  I  wonld  not  say  a 
word  against  it.  If  it  had  originated  from  a  purpose  and  a  desire  to  aid  the  na- 
tional Treasnry  in  this  hour  of  the  country's  peril,  to  supply  men  or  money  for  the 


26 

rgantic  eflfort  which  we  are  now  making  for  iiatloniil  oxintence  and  national  lionor, 
nevur  would  liavo  said  one  word  or  one  syllable  against  it.  But  thot  is  not  the 
i^oinid.  The  Committee  on  '/oraraerce  have  not  been  heurd  from ;  the  Committee 
on  Finance  have  nut  been  beard  from.  It  conies  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
BelatinuH,  and  therefore  I  think  it  maybe  considered  as  coming,  not  from  the  com- 
mercial nor  from  the  financial  interests,  nor  from  those  who  represent  those  inter- 
ests. *  •  •  If  you  abrogate  this  treaty,  it  will  be  looked  upon  in  Canada,  it  will 
be  looked  upon  by  Great  Britain,  and  it  will  be  looked  upon  in  this  country  by 
some  certAinly,  as  a  measure  of  retaliation  springing  out  of  a  resentment  which,  I 
grant  you,  is  just,  for  some  wi-ougs  we  have  suffered  at  the  hands  of  these  colonies." 

Another  reason  of  the  repeal  was  the  desire  to  force  auuexation. 
It  was  thotight  that  if  we  cut  off  reciprocal  trade  with  Canada,  and 
thereby  injured  her  trade  and  took  away  from  her  the  business  which 
bhe  could  not  afford  to  lose,  the  people  of  the  douiiaiou  would  be- 
come anxiom  for  annexation  with  the  United  States  as  a  remedy  for 
all  their  woes.  As  au  iudica  \ou  of  this  feeling,  the  presiding  officer 
of  the  commercial  convention  which  met  at  Detroit  in  1865  to  con- 
sider our  treaty  and  commercial  relations  with  these  provinces  re- 
ceived a  telegram  from  Washington,  from  one  formerly  in  high  offi- 
cial position  at  the  capital:  "Establish  reciprocity,  and  you  will 
permanently  establish  a  monarchy  in  British  North  America;  defeat 
It,  and  you  will  insure  the  triumph  of  republicanism  over  this  con- 
tinent." Our  then  consul-general  for  Canada  went  to  Detroit  and 
exerted  himself  in  every  way  to  prevent  action  for  the  renewal  or 
modification  of  the  treaty. 

I  shall  not  under  this  heading  consider  the  question  of  whether  it 
is  wise  to  have  annexation,  even  if  we  could,  of  which  I  have  very 
grave  doubts,  or  whether  the  i>ioi<.us  proposed  were  useful  to  that 
end.  I  only  say  here  that  the  repeal  of  the  treaty  was  not  a  com- 
mercial, but  a  i)olitical  measure.  Many  commercial  interests  of  the 
country  desired  a  modification  of  the  treaty,  and  the  British  govern- 
ment desired  to  have  it  modified  rather  than  repealed,  and,  so  far  as  I 
know,  none  of  the  commercial  organizations  or  interests  of  the  coun- 
try ever  asked  for  the  absolute  repeal  of  that  treaty.  The  repeal 
grew  entirely  out  of  the  feelings  and  passions  engendered  by  the  war, 
rather  than  out  of  any  fancied  mercantile  demand  for  it. 

THE  EFFECT  OK  THE  FOBHEB  TREATY. 

This  treaty  continued  from  June  5, 1854,  to  March  17, 1876.  I  claim, 
and  I  think  that  it  will  be  amply  proved,  that  that  treaty,  with  all 
its  imperfections,  was  not  a  disadvantage  to  the  United  States.  The 
opponents  of  all  ideas  of  reciprocal  trade  with  Canada  assume  as  a 
self-evident  proposition  that  the  former  treaty  was  injurious  to  this 
country  and  of  more  advantage  to  Canada  than  it  was  to  us.  They 
assume  this  as  a  fact,  and  then  proceed  to  found  long  arguments 
upon  it,  whereas  I  think  that  this  House  by  a  study  of  the  question 
will  be  convinced  that  the^  exact  opposite  is  the  fact.  Even  the  de- 
lusive standard  of  the  balance  of  trade  shows  this  to  be  the  case.  I 
call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  table  which  I  have  before  re- 
ferred to,  showing  the  excess  of  imports  from  the  Unit«d  States  to 
Canada  over  exports,  and  vice  versa,  from  the  year  1851  to  1878.  From 
1854  to  1859,  both  inclusive,  the  balance  of  trade  was  very  largely  in 
our  favor.  In  1860  and  in  1861  it  turned  against  us  by  a  small 
amount,  while  in  186*2  and  1863  it  was  again  in  our  favor.  From 
1864  to  1873  it  was  against  us,  and  from  1874  to  1878  it  has  again 
been  largely  in  our  favor.  The  treaty  continued  substantially  for 
twelve  years.  Of  this  twelve  years,  eight  years  showed  a  large  bal- 
ance in  our  favor,  while  during  only  four  years  was  there  a  balance 
against  us.    According  to  the  tables,  the  balance  in  our  favor  for  the 


•einlit  years  auioniiteil  to  the  sum  of  4(i:?,470,417,  whilB  the  balnuce 
against  us  during  the  four  years  iiuiouuted  to  the  sum  of  ^16,863,564, 
sbowiug  as  a  difference  in  our  favor  between  these  two. balances  the 
BUiu  of  i46,6l5,8r)3.  The  Can:idinn  accounts  of  importations  and  ex- 
portations  differ  somewhat  from  tliose  of  the  United  States,  for  rea- 
SOHH  which  it  is  not  now  necessary  to  detain  the  House  by  explaining, 
and  hence  these  iigiires  may  vary  to  a  limited  extent;  i)ut  in  what- 
ever way  the  calculations  are  made  a  very  larj^e  balance  of  trade  in 
our  favor  and  against  Canada  always  appears  daring  the  years  of 
the  treaty.  The  foregoing  tigures  I  have  taken  froi.  different  re- 
ports or  official  statistics. 

Mr.  Bates,  in  his  argument  hereinbefore  referred  to,  sums  up  the 
results  of  the  old  treaty  as  toDows: 

Under  its  opei-atloiis  the  aggregBto  intercliange  of  coininndltios  rose  fioin  an  an- 
nual avorase uf  |l4,3:i0,76:i  In  tlie  provions  ei^Ut  yearn  to  g.!3, 4!hJ,754,  ;;olfl  oiineucv, 
ii!  die  first  year  of  the  treaty  ;  to  !j4-i.!(-12,7,'i4,  jjolil,  in  the  second:  to«.'jn,3;i9,770. 
gold,  in  the  third  :  and  to  no  less  than  $84,070,9.^5,  at  war  prires,  in  the  thirteenth 
and  final  year.  The  civil  war,  during  a  considerahle  portion  of  the  existence  of 
the  treaty,  <ircatly  increased  the  rohiiiie  and  value  of  imports  from  the  provinces, 
(and  the  exportn  to  the  provinces  as  naturally  reduced,)  and  .vet  the  l>iilance  of  trade 
for  the  entire  periml  of  thirteen  years  was'larjioly  in  favor  of  tlie  United  States. 
Tn  that  time  the  provinces  purchased  from  the  United  States  $Mii.  180.3(i4,  and  the 
United  States  pni-chaHed  from  the pi-oviuces  8t2.'),720,.520,  Icavinir  a  balance  in  favor 
of  the  Uuiti'd  States  of  #20,4.")4,24li.  IJiit  the  real  balance  Is  probably  lartjer  than 
these  H^jures  from  the  United  States  returns,  as  the  first  ten  years  of  the  treaty 
showed  a  clear  balance  of  i(i2,0l3,545.  That  balance  appears  by  our  Government 
returns  to  have  been  reduced  by  tlie  opei-ations  of  the  three  following  yeai-s  to  the 
sum  before  stated,  namely,  t20,454,'.24li.  Due  allowance,  however,  should  be  made 
for  infiatt^d  war-price  values  of  importations.  The  returns  of  British  provinces 
make  the  balance  t'>.'i,7Uti.!(r<t  in  favor  of  the  United  States. 

Such,  then,  weie  the  results  from  the  old  treaty.  Let  us  glance  one  moment  at 
the  character  of  the  traffic : 

Total  purchageg  by  the  proviiices,  of  the  United  States,  domestic  and  foreign,  articles  in 

bond. 

Animals  and  their  products $33,4.13,213 

Breadstuffs 118,0.')a473 

Other  farm  products 3,242,  !)83 

Timber 8,511,4S« 

Manufactures 88, 649,  ftM 

Miscellaneous 24,044,977 

Total  homo  productions 271  940,  988 

Foreign  commodities  bought  iu  bond  from  merchants  iu  United  States 
and  imported  into  Canada 62,379,718 

Total 334,320,706 

Showing  not  less  than  il5l, 029,573  of  maaufactnred  goods  purchased  by  Cana- 
dians from  the  United  States  under  the  treaty.  These  figures  are  taken  from  the 
United  States  otHcial  returns,  as  quoted  in  proposa'  for  treaty  submitted  by  Great 
Britain  in  1874,  to  which  reference  will  be  mftde  further  on. 

The  tables  show  a  rise  in  the  balance  of  trade  in  our  favor  from 
$5,559,924  in  lf553,  the  year  before  the  treaty,  to  $15,039,300  in  1854 
and  $12,()69,'286  in  1855,  and  the  rise  iu  the  value  of  our  exports  to 
Canada  from  $13,140,642  in  1853  to  $24,566,dO0  in  1854,  and  $27,806,020 
in  1855,  and  $29,529,349  in  1856,  which  certainly  must  be  regarded  as 
ft  very  extraordinary  increase  and  can  only  be  attributed  to  the  effect 
of  the  treaty. 

I  take  the  following  from  Munro's  book,  heretofore  referred  to : 

During  the  operatiou  of  that  treaty,  when  international  commerce  was  allowed 
tn  follow  its  natural  bent  at  least  in  a  measure,  the  domestic  trade  between  these 
two  countries  rose  from  120,691,360  in  ln53,  the  year  before  the  treaty,  to  $33,491,420 
in  the  following  year. 

In  1865,  when  the  treaty  wiis  abrogated,  the  total  imports  from  and  exports  to  the 
^nlon  amounted  to  171,374,816 ;  and  iu  1866.  believing  the  treaty  would  be  renewed, 


28 

the  trade  l)etween  the  two  countries  rose  to  |84.07ii,055.  But  in  1868,  when  all  liopo 
of  II  new  treaty  of  reciprocity  failed,  the  trade  fell  to  150,387,546,  ghowing  a  decline 
of  twentyeiirlit  niillionH  in  two  yearB. 

The  total  trade  between  theHe  countries  in  the  eleven  years  previous  to  1855  was 
|163,59:<,4;)5,  while  in  the  following  eleven  years,  when  the  effects  of  the  treaty  were 
felt,  their  total  trade  rose  to  t554.6:M,9l6.  And  the  ratio  uf  increase  was  greater  in 
the  last  than  In  the  tlrst  years  of  the  treaty. 

The  liniiteil  compass  and  slow  in'uwlh  of  their  trade  previous  to  1854,  its  unprece- 
dented expunsiou  from  that  period  to  the  close  of  1866,  when  the  effects  of  the 
treaty  had  reached  their  maximum  and  the  sudden  decrease  which  followetl  the 
abrrgation  of  the  treaty,  are  sii^iiiticaut  resulllb,  and  cannot  fail  to  impress  the  in- 
habitants of  both  countries  with  the  importance  of  closer  free-trade  relations. 

And  the  triide  between  the  Uuniiniou  of  Canada  and  the  United  States  did  not 
exceed  the  value  of  |78,003,4!ia  in  lf!76,  and  one  million  less  than  this  sum  in  1877. 

During  the  opeiatinn  of  the  treaty  the  chief  part  of  the  trade  between  the  prov- 
inces and  Great  Britain  bei^ame  gindually  transferred  to  the  United  States.  And 
now.  witiiout  the  advantages  which  that  treaty  afforded,  the  trade  between  the 
provinces  and  the  States,  even  in  the  face  of  an  almost  prohibitory  tariff,  is  com- 
paratively large. 

The  following  is  from  the  speech  of  Mr.  Ward,  In  Congress,  May  18, 
1864: 

The  treaty  was  dated  Jnne  5,  1854,  and  its  salutary  effects  were  partially  experi- 
enced during  that  year.  Our  exports  to  the  pi-ovinces  during  the  seven  preceding 
years  have  been  multiplied  nearly  threefold  In  the  seven  years  which  have  elapsed 
since  the  treaty,  having  been  t6!i,6H6,107  in  the  former  and  1171,628,779  in  the  latter 
period;  while  our  imports  from  the  same  regions  have  increased  more  than  four- 
fold, having  l>een  (34,81.'),885  in  the  former  period  against  (145,183,096  in  the  seven 
years  since  the  treaty  went  fully  into  effect. 

It  was  said  by  the  honorable  member — he  repeated  the  remark  several  times — 
that  the  balance  of  our  trade  with  the  provinces  is  against  us.  The  statement  ap- 
pears slightly  moditied  in  his  remarks  as  printed  in  the  Globe ;  biic  is  substantially 
retained  there.  Did  he  mean  during  the  last  year  of  which  we  have  otflcial  informa- 
tion f  It  was  then  nearly  two  millions  in  our  favor.  Did  he  mean  during  the  whole 
time  since  the  treaty  went  Into  operation  1 

In  that  time  it  was  more  than  twenty-six  millions  in  onr  favor.  There  is  nothing 
vague  about  this.  There  is  no  mystery  in  the  figures.  There  is  no  need  of  passion 
or  declamation.  The  solution  is  as  easy  as  that  of  any  school-boy  sum  in  arithme- 
tic, or  of  any  ordinarv  settlement  of  accounts  between  individuals. 

I  find  my 'data  on  the  sixth  page  of  the  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
In  answer  to  the  resolution  of  this  House  on  the  17th  day  of  last  December,  asking 
for  information  as  to  the  operations  of  this  treaty.  We  asked  him  for  information, 
and  it  is  furnished  to  us.  Shall  we  ignore  it,  ami  substitute  for  it  such  conclusions 
as  our  several  fancies  may  suggest  i  We  may  iu  this  way  point  a  paragraph  or 
lend  some  illusory  brilliancy  to  a  speech ;  but  that  is  not  statesmansuip.  It  does 
not  accord  with  our  duty  to  the  nation.  The  balance  of  gold  on  which  so  much 
stress  has  been  laid  was  not  paid  by  us  to  the  provinces  bnt  by  them  to  ns.  It 
amounted  to  (36,445,693.  This  is  the  state  of  affairs  as  to  which  the  honorable 
member  says  he  "  would,  if  necessary,  use  force  to  put  an  end  to  an  alliance  so  in- 
jurious." 

Meeting  upon  their  own  ground  the  theorists  who  regard  "  a  balance  of  trade  in 
our  favor"  as  the  chief  test  of  the  benefits  of  commercialexchanges  with  any  single 
country,  I  find  that,  according  to  the  reports  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  there 
appears  to  have  been  during  the  thirteen  years  when  a  treaty  for  the  reciprocal  ex- 
change of  grain,  lumber,  and  many  other  natural  productions  existed,  a  balance  in 
our  favor  amounting  to  some  {83,000,000  and  that  ever  since  the  termination  of  the 
treaty  until  1874,  when  the  pressure  on  onr  affairs  tended  to  force  sales  at  low  prices 
there  has  been  a  balance  against  the  United  States  in  the  tra«Ie  with  the  Dominion. 

So  much  for  the  present  exclusive  policy  iu  comparison  with  the  more  liberal 
but  incomplete  system  under  the  treaty,  judging  them  from  the  ordiuary  stand- 
point of  many  protectionists. 

Regarding  the  balance  of  trade  as  a  test  of  the  benefit  or  disad- 
vantage of  the  commerce  with  our  country,  it  was  in  our  favor,  but 
the  balance  of  trade  is  by  no  means  a  conclusive  test ;  and  if  it  could 
be  made  to  appear  that  such  balance  is  against  us,  it  would  not  prove 
that  the  treaty  waj  a  disadvantage  to  the  United  States.  The  argu- 
ment of  the  balance  of  trade  being  against  a  country  is  always  a  fa- 
vorite argument  with  those  who  desire  to  prove  that  such  a  trade  is 
of  no  advantage,  but  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  delusive.    Suppose, 


29 

for  exuiii)i1e,  that  the  balance  of  trade  in  cereal  products  was  agaiust 
our  country  and  in  favor  of  Canada,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  that 
trade  whs  injurioun  to  os,  but  the  natural  assuuiption  wouhl  be  that 
it  might  be  a  benefit,  for  if  we  did  not  need  those  cereals  from  Can- 
ada for  our  own  consumption  we  could  either  sell  them  to  foreign 
countries  and  thus  increase  our  foreign  trade,  or  they  would  release 
to  the  same  exteut  the  cereal  producto  of  our  own  country  to  be  sent 
abroad.  It  will  need  no  argument  to  prove  that  if  any  portion  of 
our  productions  are  replaced  by  foreign  importations,  just  so  much 
of  our  productions  may  be  released  to  be  sent  to  foreign  countries. 
So  a  balance  of  trade  against  us  might  still  result  in  a  benefit  to  this 
country,  irrespective  of  the  qnostion  of  our  merchants,  shippers,  and 
handlers  of  freight  having  these  goods  puss  through  their  hands  and 
through  our  commercial  ports. 

It  is  alwnj'8  to  beveineniberod  tliiit  tlio  trade  between  that  country  and  the  United 
States  is  to  a  consiilerable  extent  one  of  transit  or  carryinji  t«  other  countries,  and 
thu8  \rbat  is  called  "a  balance"  against  us,  which  Is  really  an  advautaKe,  may 
exist,  becauHe  it  may  merely  represent  what  wo  have  bought  fiom  one  country  to 
sell  at  a  profit  to  others. 

If  onr  merchants  buy  the  bulky  productions  of  Canada  to  the  extent  of  irany 
millions  and  carry  them  tbrouKli  our  own  country  to  our  sea-]>orts,  tlioy  givi^  t  iii- 
ployment  to  our  laborers,  create  a  demand  for  the  pi-oilucts  of  our  tanners,  -iiid 
cause  the  expenditure  and  employment  of  vast  sums  of  money  anion);  our  trailers 
and  capitalists,  while  the  articles  thus  carried  and  exported  stand  to  our  credit  aud 
profitably  swell  the  balance  in  our  favor  in  other  countries,  beine  at  least  as  val- 
uable in  our  oxcb:  .ngcs  with  the  rent  of  the  world  as  if  they  were  sold  and  silver. — 
Hon.  E.  Ward') speech  in  Home  of  llepregentativeg,  May  18,  1876. 

I  therefuie  claim  that  even  by  the  test  of  the  balance  of  trade  or 
otherwise  the  treaty  was  a  benefit  to  us.  If  it  is  to  be.  argued  that 
the  fact  of  the  balance  of  tnulu  being  against  us  is  an  absolute  injury 
to  the  country,  and  any  trade  should  be  shut  off  and  destroyed  which 
shows  a  balance  against  ns,  why  does  not  Congress  endeavor  to  pass 
some  law  actually  forbidding  all  trade  whatever  with  Canada  or 
France  or  any  other  country  in  regard  to  which  the  balance  may 
be  against  us  f  If  ■we  purchase  goods  aud  thus  produce  a  balance 
against  us,  it  is  because  as  a  people  we  want  to  purchase  thode  goods — 
because  we  need  them,  because  we  think  it  will  be  a  beuelit  to  us 
as  a  people ;  and  hence  a  country  may  be  benefited  if  it  purchases 
goods  from  another  and  sells  to  that  other  country  no  goods  what- 
ever. The  argument  travels  around  in  a  circle,  because  it  is  to  be 
supposed  that  if  it  was  of  no  benefit  to  our  people  and  our  merchants 
to  purchase  such  goods,  they  would  not  purchase  them. 

EFFECT  OF  ITS  KEPEAL. 

After  the  repeal  the  balance  of  trade  was  steadily  against  us  until 
1874,  at  which  time  it  agaiu  turned  in  our  favor,  wheu,  on  account 
of  the  prostration  of  business  aud  the  low  value  of  material  and 
labor,  our  goods  began  to  be  man  ufactured  at  so  low  a  cost  and  our 
other  articles  to  be  produced  so  cheaply  that  wo  could  sell  to  the 
Canadians  at  lower  rates  than  they  could  sell  to  us.  WhateVer  the 
raason,  the  fact  is,  as  shown  by  the  figures,  that  after  the  termination 
of  the  treaty  the  balance  of  trade  with  Canada  turned  and  remained 
against  us  until  recently. 

Mr.  Ward,  in  his  speech  of  May,  1876,  said : 

Since  the  termination  of  the  treaty  the  proportion  of  the  trade  of  Canada  with 
this  country,  in  comparison  with  the  whole  foreign  trade,  has  been  reduced  from 
S5  to  35  per  cent.,  until  the  necessities  of  our  people  compelled  them  to  part  with 
the  proiluota  of  their  labor  at  reduced  prices. 

As  was  said  at  the  hearing  before  the  committee : 

I  propose  now,  Mr.  Chairmau,  to  show  the  results  following  the  repeal  of  the 


30 

trcftty.  Customs, duties  were,  of  course.  inipoMci)  on  nonrly  all  nrticlos  tinporteil 
{nun  the  pruvinccs.  The  provincial  tAriff  whh  but  little  cbaneeil,  and  a  largo  pre- 
]«>utlerance  of  articles  from  the  United  States  were  still  admitted  free.  Tlie  use 
of  the  Canadian  canals  and  the  uaviKation  of  the  Saint  Lawrence  were  still  left 
open  to  American  shipping.  Under  lullaence  of  the  peremptory  notice  given  by 
United  States  in  186S  of  a  termination  of  the  treaty  the  confe<leiation  of  the  British 
provinces  was  hastened,  and  became  an  accomplished  fact  within  fifteen  months 
after  such  terminatioa.  The  intercolonial  railway  connecting  the  maritime  prov- 
inces with  the  province  of  Quebec  was  undertaken  at  a  cost  of  over  ('20,000,000. 
Commissioners  were  dispatched  to  the  Krilisli  and  otlior  Went  Inilii's  Islands  and 
to  South  America,  to  promote  and  extend  trade.  The  subsidizing  of  ocean  and  river 
steamships,  the  promotion  of  the  great  ship-building  and  Ushery  interests,  ail  these 
received  fresh  and  energetic  advancement. 

The  export  trade  of  the  provinces  with  other  countries  largely  increased.  Be- 
ing shut  out  from  our  markets  they  were  compelled  to  liud  otlier  outlets  for  their 
products.  Their  business  with  the  West  Iniiies  increased,  and  ho  increased  too 
in  the  very  merciuuidise  shut  ont  from  our  markets  by  the  operations  of  onr  tariff. 
It  enable<l  them,  Ut  a  large  extent,  to  shut  out  our  people  from  that  trade  because 
they  could  supply  their  pnidiicts  So  much  cheaper. 

In  other  words,  they  built  up  a  West  India  IJusiness  with  the  very  merchandise 
we  hod  excludeil  and  which,  but  for  this,  our  merchauts  mieht  have  received  and 
distributed  profitably  in  those  very  markets  where  their  Canadian  cnmpelitors 
were  now  ftuced  to  undersell  them.  Not  only  this,  but  Canatlian  vesHcls  secured 
a  large  share  of  the  carrying  trade,  the  bulk  of  arrivals  of  sut^ar  and  molasses  at 
Boston  (I  should  say  fully  three-fourths)  being  brought  in  British  bottoms.  This 
has  been  the  situation  for  several  years.— Ari/tonrnC »/  J.  V.  Bates,  esq. 

The  repeal  of  the  treaty  was  not  only  of  effect  in  tnrninf;  the  bal- 
ance of  trade  against  ns,  but  in  inducing  Canada  to  enter  upon  a 
career  of  self-prudiiction  and  of  fostering  her  own  industries  and  man- 
nfactnres,  which  effect  will  be  briefly  discussed  hereafter.  When  our 
opponents  claim,  then,  that  the  old  treaty  was  of  no  benefit  and  that 
its  repeal  can  be  demonstrated  to  have  worked  benefit  to  our  country, 
and  that  therefore  there  is  no  use  in  considering  this  subject  at  all, 
I  deny  both  their  statements  and  their  conclusions. 

TUB  (QUESTION  OF   THE   EFFECT  OK  THE    FORWF.It  THEATY   OR  OK  ITS  REl'EAL  IMMA- 
TERIAL. 

But,  after  all,  this  question  is  wholly  immaterial,  although  onr  op- 
ponents lay  80  much  stress  upon  it.  I  beg  to  remind  the  House  again, 
because  onr  opponents  by  their  arguments  persist  in  refusing  to  ac- 
cept it  as  a  conclusive  statement,  that  this  is  only  a  resolution  for 
information  and  that  these  complicated  and  vexed  questions  of  the 
effect  of  old  or  of  new  possible  treaties  is  one  of  the  very  questions 
which  we  want  a  commission  to  investigate  and  thoroughly  examine. 
It  is  entirely  irrelevant  when  we  ask  for  information  on  a  subject  for 
gentlemen  to  argue  that  the  facts  are  as  they  state,  because  it  is  this 
very  question  of  fact  which  we  want  the  commission  to  investigate. 

v.— 18  THE  CONDITION  OF  AFFAIRS  SUCH  AT  THE  PRESENT  TIME  A8  TO  MAKE  AN  IN- 

<jUIRY   ADVISAULB? 

A  permanent  policy  in  regard  to  onr  trade  with  Canada  should  now 
be  adopted,  and  if  possible  the  long-standing  controversy  between 
the  two  countries  ended.  It  is  for  the  interests  of  each  country  that 
it  shoald  now  know  what  to  expect  in  the  future,  and  should  avoid 
doubtful  and  shifting  legislation.  A  nation,  like  an  individual,  can 
adapt  itself  to  a  policy,  even  if  a  bad  one,  if  it  knows  it  is  to  be  per- 
manent. If  an  exclusive  one  of  non-intercourse  between  the  two 
conntrieH  is  to  be  adopted,  Canada  will  go  to  work  and  build  up  manu- 
factures and  other  industries  and  put  herself  under  pledges  to  her 
manufacturers  to  protect  them.  If  this  policy  is  adopted  it  cannot 
well  be  changed  in  the  future,  because  when  Canada  has  allowed  her 
citizens  to  expend  large  sums  of  money  in  building  up  manafactnring 
industries  under  the  influence  of  a  prohibitory  tariff  against  this 


31 

country,  and  a  protective  tarirt'  for  her  own  citizens,  she  cannot  after- 
ward abtiudou  them  and  leave  them  to  the  mercy  of  open  uud  free 
competition  with  other  coiintriefl.  At  the  present  time  she  is  under 
no  such  pledKes  or  oi)ligationH,  but  the  people  of  Canada  desire  tu 
purchase  their  goods  in  the  cheapest  market.  In  one  year,  five  years, 
or  ten  years,  under  a  non-intercourse  policy,  she  may  be  under  such 
pledges  and  cannot,  without  a  gross  breach  of  faith,  treat  with  the 
Unit«d  States  for  reciprocal  trade.  This  seems  to  be^  as  it  were,  an 
interregnum  between  dead  policies  of  the  past  and  policies  of  the  fut- 
ure of  the  two  countries  as  to  the  respective  questions  of  interest. 
Those  questions  remain  in  abeyance  awaitiug  a  settlement. 

The  question  now  vexing  the  Canadian  authorities  is  as  to  what 
tariff  policy  they  sh.all  adopt,  whether  of  protection,  or  of  retaliation, 
or  of  free  trade.  AH  these  questions  of  commercial  intercourse  be- 
tween the  two  countries  are  now  in  an  unsettled  state,  and  there  never 
was  a  time  when  the  people  were  so  anxious  to  have  them  talien  up 
and  settled  and  when  they  could  be  treated  with  such  freedom  from 
outside  complications  of  law  or  otherwise.  The  new  tariff  of  Canada 
went  into  effect  March  15,  1871).  This  tariff  was  intended  by  the  Ca- 
nadian authorities  for  two  purposes  :  first,  to  foster  the  industries  of 
their  own  country  ;  and  second,  to  punish  the  United  States.  By  tlio 
same  law  they  hoped  to  keep  out  United  States  productions  front 
their  country,  and  under  the  iutlueuce  of  their  strong  prohibitory  and 
retaliatory  tariff  to  build  up  manufactures  and  to  increase  productions 
in  Canada.  It  is  at  the  same  time  a  prohibitory,  retalii.tory,  pro- 
tective, and  revenue  tariff,  and  the  object  is  boldly  announced  to  be 
to  shut  off  American  trade  unless  mutual  arrangements  can  be  made,, 
and  to  cut  our  goods  out  of  the  Canadian  markets.  Now,  if  their 
tariff  was  'permanent,  even  though  harsh  against  us,  our  merchants 
could  anticipate  and  make  their  calculations  concerning  it ;  but  under 
their  peculiar  mode  of  tariff  legislation  they  can  change  it  at  almost 
any  time,  and  whenever  they  see  a  new  trade  is  growing  up  betweea 
the  United  States  and  Can.ada  they  can  almost  instantly  crush  it  out. 

The  long  delays  in  enacting  our  tariff  laws  and  the  careful  con- 
sideration which  such  laws  receive  in  our  Congress  or  in  committee 
do  not  prevail  in  the  Dominion.  The  mode  of  legislation  in  the  Ca- 
nadian Parliament  differs  widely  from  that  followed  in  the  United 
States.  In  Canada  the  finance  minister  exorcises  the  duties  of  our 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  prepares  and  submits  a  tariff  to  the 
council,  and  sifter  an  approval  it  is  submitted  to  the  House  of  Com- 
mons by  the  finance  minister  as  a  government  measure.  All  the  mia- 
istArs  are  members  by  election  or  ex  officio,  and  the  government  having- 
a  majority  in  the  house  (or  they  cannot  obtain  power)  are  able  at 
once  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  bill.  To  illustrate :  The  customs- 
tariff  act  of  1879  was  sul)mitte(l  on  the  afteruoon  of  March  14  by  th& 
fin:^co  minister,  Sir  Leonard  Tilley,  when  he  made  his  budget  speech. 
He  was  replied  to  by  his  predecessor,  agreeably  to  custom.  Other 
speeches  were  made  by  ministers  and  ex-ministers,  and  at  about  five 
o'clock  on  the  next  morning  the  resolutions  affirming  the  expediency 
of  many  of  the  provisions  embodied  in  the  bill  were  passed.  The  new 
tariff  went  into  force  on  the  opening  of  the  custom-house  on  the  15tb. 
If  Canada  chooses  to  carry  on  this  tariff  war,  are  we  to  meet  her  in 
warfare  of  that  sort  f  Canada  can  harm  ns,  it  is  true,  but  we  can  do 
them  infinitely  more  damage  than  they  can  possibly  inflict  on  us.  A 
comparison  of  the  new  and  old  Canadian  tariffs  is  worth  ooDsiderin^, 
as  snowing  the  object  of  the  new  tariff  and  its  possible  resalts.  It  is 
impossible  to  give  here  a  fall  list,  bat  below  is  a  table  of  the  articles 
principally  affected. 


32 


Dominion  of  Canada,— The  new  tariff  and,  the  old. 


Articles. 


Agricultural  implementa 

ArtiHclal  HowerR 

BookbiuiinrH'  toul8  aud  implements 

Burley-buiins 

'Wheat 

Oats,  pease,  and  rye 

Buckwheat 

Inilian  corn 

Oatmeal 

Wheat  flonr 

Bye  Hour 

Com-meal 

Brass,  in  bars  or  shoots 

BrasH  tubing 

Brooms  and  brushes  

Cania);es,  wagons,  sleighs 

Cenicut,  raw 

Cement,  burnt 

■Wttter-llme 

Olocks.  or  parts  of 

Coal,  anthriiolte 

Coal,  bituminous 

Copper— pig,  scrap,  bar,  bolt,  ingot,  and 
sheet. 

Copper  tul)ing  and  wire 

Copper  rivets  and  I>ar8 

Copper,  manufactures  of 

Cordage,  if  for  ships'  purposes 

Drain  and  sewer  pipes  and  tiles 

Brown,  earthen,  and  stone  ware  

White  granite  or  ironstone  ware 

Electroplated  ware 

Fish,  except  those  free  by  treaty  of  Wash- 
ington. 

Apples 

Peaches 

Plums,  qninces,  and  cranberries 

Oranges  and  lemons 

,  Furniture , 

Gas  or  kerosene  fixtures 

Gutta-percha,  manufactures  of  

Boots,  shoes,  and  leather  manufactures  . . . 

Iron,  pig , 

Iron,  old  and  scrap. 

Iron— slabs,  blooms,  and  billets , 

Iron — bars,  band,  hoop,  sheet,  galvanized, 
boiler,  and  Canada  plate. 

Iron  and  steel  wire,  up  to  No.  18 

Iron  car- wheels 

Locomotive  engines 

Iron  machinery 

Hardware— liuilders",  cabinet-makers',  sad- 
dlers', carriage-makers',  upholsterers'. 

^^^oA — pig,  block,  bar,  sheet,  old  scrap 

Leather,  upper,  also  sole  and  belting, 
tanned  but  not  waxed. 

Oil,  linseed  or  flax 

Organs,  specific  aud  ad  valorem, 

Paper-hangings 

Envelopes 

Whisky,  (on  imported  gallon) 

Brandy,  (on  imported  gallon) 

Steel — lngo*;i,  bars,  sheets... 

Steel — edge-tools,  farmers'  implements, 
snades,  shovels,  axes,  saws,  scythes,  me- 
chanics' tools,  and  skates. 


New  tariff. 


8.1  percent 

30  percent 

l^  percuut  

15  c.  per  bush  . . . 
10  0.  per  busli . . . 
10 0.  per  bush... 
10  c.  per  bush  . . , 
TJ  c.  per  bush . . . 

i  cpor  lb 

50  0.  per  bill 

50  0.  perbbl 

40  c.  per  bbl  - . . , 
10  per  cent 

10  percent 

95  percent 

US  pur  cent 

11  per  ton 

li  0.  per  100  Ills  . 

4t)  0.  perbbl 

'J5  per  cent 

50  c.  per  ton 

50  c.  per  ton 

10  per  cent 


10  per  cent.. 
30  per  cent.. 
30  per  cent. . 
15  per  cent.. 
SJOper  cent.. 
35  per  cent.. 
30  per  cent . . 
30  per  cent. . 
1  c.  per  lb... 


40  0.  per  bill  . . 
40  0^ per  bush. 
30  0.  per  bush . 
30  per  cent.... 

35  per  cent 

30  percent 

33  per  cent 

35  per  cent 

t2per  ton 

ti  per  ton 

131  per  cent... 
17|  per  cent... 

35  per  cent . . . . 

35  per  cent 

35  per  cent  — 
35  per  cent.... 
30  per  cent 

10  per  cent 

15  per  cent  — 


35  c.  per  gall.. 

tlOto  130 

30  per  cent 

35  per  cent — 
tl.32i  per  gall. 
$1.45  per  gall.. 

10  per  cent 

30  per  cent — 


Old  UrifT. 


IT^  per  cent. 

17}  per  cent. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Fiee. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Broe. 

percent. 

per  cent. 
- . ,  per  cent. 
Free. 
Free. 

17i  percent. 
1T{  per  cent. 
Free. 
Free. 
Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

17^  per  cent. 

5  per  cent. 

Free. 

per  cent. 

per  cent. 
.  per  cent. 
Free. 


KTOf. 

17*  1 

"Si 
17ji 


17|i 


per  cent, 
per  cent, 
per  cent, 
per  cent, 
per  cent. 
Iter  cent, 
per  cent, 
per  cent. 


17.  r 
Free. 
Free. 
Free. 
5   per  cent. 

5   per  cent. 
17}  per  cent. 
17}  per  cent. 
10  and  17}  p.  o. 
17}  per  cent. 

Free. 

10   per  cent. 

17}  per  cent. 
17}  per  cent. 
17}  per  c«nt. 
17}  per  cent. 
tl.30  per  gall. 
$1.30  per  gall. 
Free. 
17}  per  cent. 


33 


Dominion  of  Canada,— Tlie  new  tariff  and  the  oM.— Continued. 


ArtiolM. 


Sugar,  alwve  Ko.  14  Batch  itandard 

Sugar,  No.  OtoNo.  14 

Sugar,  below  No.  0 

MoIas'ieHnotforreflaery,  if  imported  (Uroct. 

Tin~blnol(H,  pigfl,  and  bars 

Type,  priiitiug 

Type  metal   

Glaag — bottloH,  jars,  phials,  lamp-chiuinoys, 

and  colored  window. 
Cottons — HiieotiiiKs,  drill,  duck.  Canton  Uan- 

nel,  uncoiored. 
CottoDH— Joans,  denlma,   ginghams,   drill, 

&o,,  if  coloretl. 
Cottons,  not  biuacbod,  colored 

Cottons,  bleached  or  dyed  or  colored 

Cotton  shirts,  drawers,  hosiery,  and  cloth- 
ing. 

Cotton  thread,  in  hanks 

Cotton  tlirend,  on  spools 

iVooiens— hIiawI.s  blankots.flannels, tweeds, 
coatings,  clotliH,  felt,  yarn,  knitted  sliirts, 
drawers,  and  hosiery. 

Ready-made  clothiue,  wholly  or  mostly 
wool,  except  knittuu. 

Carpets,  ingrain,  three  and  two  ply 


New  tariff. 


1  c.  per  lb.  and3.^p.c 

}  0.  per  lb.  and  30  p.c 

i  c.  per  lb.  and  30  p.c 

15  per  cent 

10  percent 

30  percent 

10  percent 

30  per  cent 

15  percent 

3  0.  per  sq.  yd.  and 

18  p.  0. 
3  o.  per  sq.  yd.  and 

15  p.  c. 
3  c.  per  sq.  yd.  and 

15  p.  c. 
30  percent 

13i  percent 

30  percent 

74  c.  per  lb.  and  30 
p.c. 

10  c.  per  lb.  and  35 

p.  c. 
10  c.  per  sq.  yd.  and 

SO  p.  c. 


Old  tariff. 


1  c.  per  lb.  and 

83  p.  c. 
}  0.  per  lb,  and 

35  p,  c. 
t  0.  per  lb.  and 

83  p.  0. 
33  per  cent. 
Free. 

17}  per  cent. 
Free. 
17J  per  cent. 

17i  per  cent. 

17}  per  cent. 

10  per  cent. 


10  per  cent 
17}  per  cent. 
"    per  cent. 


15 


17}  per  cent. 


They  are  still  chanffing  the  tariiF  from  time  to  time  as  they  think 
it  may  help  them  and  hurt  us.  For  example,  on  March  10, 1880,  they 
increased  the  taritf  on  billiard  tables,  organs,  and  piano-fortes  from 
10  to  15  per  cent.^  on  blank  books,  &c.,  30  per  cent.;  bitnminons 
coal  from  fifty  to  sixty  cents  per  ton ;  china  from  20  to  25  per  cent. ; 
ruled  paper  25  per  cent. ;  and  removed  guuny  cloth  and  bags  from 
the  free  list,  and  made  many  pther  changes.  Let  us  consider  for  a 
moment  a  few  of  the  results  of  the  new  tariff,  which  results  it  is  en- 
tirely imposs'ble  in  an  argument  of  this  nature  to  consider  in  detail. 
Coal,  formerly  free,  pays  a  duty  of  fifty  cents  per  ton,  and  as  our  ex- 
ports reach  870,682  tons,  the  question  is  one  of  no  mean  importance. 
Flour,  formerly  free,  now  pays  a  duty  of  fifty  cents  a  barrel.  The 
imports  from  the  United  States  into  Canada  of  petroleum  amounted 
to  1,034,1)54  gallons,  and  this  is  now  practically  shut  out  from  the 
Canadian  markets.  The  duty  on  cotton  and  cotton  manufactures  has 
been  carried  up  from  about  17^  per  cent,  to  from  15  to  20  per  cent., 
besides  a  specific  duty  (in  general)  of  two  cents  per  yard ;  and  on 
woolen  manufactures  from  17^  to  20  per  cent.  The  duties  ou  sugar 
are  practically  prohibitory,  and  sugar  refineries  are  commenced  or  in 
contemplation  in  different  parts  of  the  Dominion.  The  result  of  this 
policy,  if  persevered  in,  will  be  the  stimulation  of  Canadian  indus- 
tries and  of  manufactures,  the  building  of  mills,  and  the  rendering  of 
Canada  to  a  certain  extent  independent  of  us. 

It  may  be  claimed  that  this  is  just  what  Canada  wants  under  any 

circumstances,  and  that  we  cannot  prevent  it.    But  nothing  is  more 

certain  than  that  Canada  or  the  people  of  Canada  do  not  desire  this 

unless  forced  into  it.    Canada  does  not  desire  a  protective  tariff,  and 

3  BO 


34 

'will  throw  it  off,  nnlcM  it  is  forced  npou  ber  by  onr  conduct.  Tbey 
underHtaud  well  that  Huch  a  protective  tarff,  even  if  it  does  build  up 
their  manufactures,  would  be  of  no  advantage  to  the  conanmera. 
they  cannot  compete  with  ua,  with  our  great  reitonrceR,  in  manufact- 
uring. Tlieir  manufactories  cannot  turu  out  goods  aa  cheap  as  we 
cau  sell  gjods  to  them,  and  already  there  are  deep  and  loud  uiutter- 
ings  of  complaint  by  the  people  ngainst  the  new  Canailian  tariff  sys- 
tem. A  protective  tariff  cannot  lie  devised  there  which  is  satisfao- 
tory  to  the  different  sections  of  their  great  Dominion.  If  coal  is  pro- 
tected, Western  Canada  complains  because  she  cannot  buy  her  coal 
at  cheap  rates  from  the  United  States ;  and  if  wheat  is  protected  for 
the  benefit  of  Western  Canada,  then  the  eastern  provinces  complain 
of  it  as  a  discrimination  against  them.  It  is  no  advantage  to  them 
to  build  up  a  great  manufacturing  power  at  the  cost  of  suffering  to 
the  people,  and  it  is  certainly  no  advantage  to  us  to  have  such  a  com- 
peting power  grow  up  Just  across  our  border.  As  an  example  of  this 
growing  discontenc  I  shall,  under  the  nest  beading  of  this  argument, 
quote  a  few  extri.otsfroin  newspapers  and  booltH published  in  Canada: 

(illTlt'AI.  IMl'OHTANCK  OF  TliK  KlIl.lF.t'T  AT  TIIK   I'HKBRNT  TIME. 

If  the  present  policy  Just  inaugurated  of  non- intercourse  is  persisted 
in,  Canada  must  eventually  build  up  competing  interests  against 
ours,  whether  it  will  be  for  her  present  interest  or  not,  and  will  be 
obliged  to  stand  by  them  for  the  reasons  which  I  hav  j  before  stated 
and  which  are  also  shown  in  the  following  quotations: 

Encouraged  by  the  government,  as  in  the  States,  cnpltaliNta  would  luvuxt  large 
smonnts  In  certiilu  inaiigtiieB  which  coiiUl  nut  fail  to  liulld  up  a  powei-ful  interest 
in  oppoNitlon  to  reciprocity  an  it  has  done  in  the  Union. 

Men  who  have  innirrod'  vast  expense  on  the  faith  of  protective  legislation,  will 
JORtly  claim  that  the  government  has  no  right  to  sacritico  their  interests  by  a  sud- 
den change  of  policy.— Jfunro,  page  116. 

The  tendency  of  the  newCana<lian  tariff,  if  continued  for  a  few  years,  is  to  build 
np  interests  which  the  government  cannot  afterward  abandon  without  a  viula- 
tion  of  Justice. 

There  will  never  be  a  period  when  a  reciprocity  treaty  can  be  negotiated  on  a 
basis  so  favorable  to  the  United  States  as  at  present,  while  as  yet  the  new  Canadian 
tariff  has  not  caused  large  investments  of  capital  in  manufactures  which  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Dominion  will  be  compelled  in  justice  to  foster  after  having  called 
them  into  existence  by  its  own  action. 

We  call  the  attention  ( .  President  Hayes  and  Secretary  Evnrts  to  the  fact  that 
a  new  reciprocity  treaty  could  bo  negotla'te<l  this  year  without  enoounteiinga  tithe 
of  the  opposition  it  would  have  to  meet  aftdt'  the  new  Canadian  tariff  shall  have 
produced  its  natural  effect  of  creating  interests  which  the  government  of  the  Do- 
minion cannot  honorably  abandon. 

"  There  is  a  tide  in  tlie  affairs  of  men,"  and  Secretary  Evarts  will  miss  a  great 
opportunity  if  be  does  not  take  advantage  of  the  present  situation  to  obtain  for  our 
producers  tree  access  to  the  markets  of  Canada. — JVeto  I'oril:  Herald,  March  19, 1879. 

While  wo  have  now  in  Canada  a  most  valuable  and  iucroasing  market  for  our 
manufactures,  it  is  quite  certain  that  its  continnanco  depends  on  the  duties  levied 
by  the  Canadian  tariff.  A  largo  proportion  of  the  manufactures  we  export  so 
extensively  to  the  Douiluion,  conspicuously  those  of  iron,  copper,  brass,  lead,  cot- 
ton, &o.,  are  admitted  free  of  duty  or  at  almost  nominal  rates  of  5  or  10  per  cent., 
and  those  charged  at  higher  rates  than  17}  per  cent,  are  few  in  number  and  insig- 
nificant in  quantity.  The  Canadians  have  it  In  their  power,  and  it  could  bo  no  Just 
oanse  of  complaint  to  us,  to  adopt  our  own  scale  of  duties.  The  effict  of  such  a 
step  could  not  fail  to  intlict  serious  injury  on  our  manufactures,  many  of  whose 

Eroanots  would  soon  be  excluded  from  the  Canadian  markets,  which  it  is  for  our 
iterest  to  open  yet  more  widely.— .S^«ecA  o/  Son.  E.  Ward  in  Mouse,  May  18, 1866. 

I  have  said  that  this  protective  system  of  a  high  tariff,  and  conse- 
quent increased  cost  of  goods  to  consumers,  is  one  that  cannot  be 
adopted  as  a  permanent  system  by  the  Dominion,  unless  it  shall  be 
forced  to  it  by  our  refusal  to  have  any  commercial  intercourse  with 
Canada.  The  people  are  restive  under  it  and  indisposed  to  accept  it,^ 
even  as  a  necessity  or  a  temporary  measure — or  at  least  a  very  large 


30 

portion  of  the  peoplo  are  onpoHiMl  to  it ;  and  as  tlie  ovils  Hliall  be  more 
and  more  felt,  the  oppoHitton  will  increaH«>,  and  the  people  will  ulti- 
mately compel  the  Qovornment  to  agree  upon  any  fairsyHtem  of  trade, 
and  nnder  Huch  asyitteni  to  remove, as  against  tlio  United  States,  tbeir 
prohibitory  taritl's.  The  following  (inotationo  are  some  indication  of 
the  Htate  of  feeling : 

Tlie  imnoxltlnii  of  n  duty  nn  aiilliraclte  coal  of  flfty  ceut*  per  ton  by  the  Oor- 
oriiiiKMit  fiiiH  tJiken  ovcrylxMly  by  ttiirprUe. 

In  tliH  mean  tlinu  I  think  It  U  the  uiity  nf  ovnry  oitb.cn  of  Toronto  and  Hansil- 
ton,  and  of  thn  otiipr  cHIph,  towuH,  and  vUlaKfii  in  Ontario  to  petition  thoir  repro- 
RcutatlvoH  in  Parliament  to  oppoHH  nnch  an  oniireHHive  tax,  aa  it  Ix  a  tax  that  will 
hear  hoavil  v  on  only  n  Mrcllon  uf  tlm  people  eliletly  in  ritieN,  townH,  A.e.,  and  la  not 
fairly  dlHtrihiited  over  nil  clanaeH  in  the  Uominion. — Toronto  (llobe. 


Two  days  after  tlio  national  pulicy  ranie  into  fores  coal  was  ailvanced  in  price 
nfty  centA  u  ton  ;  the  thillnr  which  could  have  purchased  ten  pnuuda  of  Hiiaar  on 
Friday  was  only  worth  nine  poniidn  on  Monday  ;  the  poor  nian'H  xirnp  foiindatax 


auninHt  it  of  H,">  per  cent.;  hl«  tea  was  made  to  contribute  heavily  to  the  revenue; 
the  cheap  llritiitli  woolen  fabiicfi  whlili  ho  wai*  aide  to  purchase  for  clothing  were 

firacticjilly  excluded  from  the  country  ;  the  meal  for  hia  ponldgo  or  niUHb  became 
Ittble  to  taxation  :  liix  buckwheat  pant^akeg  were  made  more  expensive ;  hla  furni- 
ture, bifl  rutlory,  liis  cotton  overalls,  hla  dinner  pail  and  tin  cup,  the  very  salt  with 
which  he  HCUHOUH  hi«  fare;  hU  Npnde,  shovel,  ax,  drawinxknife,  plane  and  tools 
of  all  kinds,  and  in  fact  all  the  neccHHnries  of  his  life  were  unhanced  In  price  to  an 
amount  conitiderablo  on  each  article,  but  at  present  not  exactly  determinable.    The 

Cr  souls  who  looked  to  the  national  policy  with  Intense  faith  In  its  iM>wer  to  re- 
e  their  distresses  can  now  «ppre(^iate  tlie  iid(|ulty  of  the  men  who  never  scru- 
pled to  deceive  them  with  false  '/.loniises.  They  bailed  the  advent  of  Sir  John  to 
power  with  the  enthusiastic  conviction  that  he  would  prove  their  material  savior ; 
they  have  patiently  waited  through  live  months  of  unexampled  depression  for  the 
time  when  he  sliuuid  be  ready  to  mature  his  plans  for  their  lieneHt,  anil  now  that  the 
scheme  has  been  made  public  they  feel  with  siukinit  hearts  that  thoy  are  to  be 
made  the  contributors  to  a  numl)ei- of  fortunes  to  be  presented  to  as  many  already  ' 
prosperous  manufaoturers.— rorniiJo  Otobi.  March  90,  187'.(. 

VVo  have  now  deliberately  dared  the  Ameilcansto  increase  their  duties  till  they 
exceed  our  now^  duties  by  as  much  as  our  new  duties  exceed  their  exintinK  rate. 

Not  further  duties  upon  our  manufactures,  which  would  not  Injure  us  at  all,  but 
a  BtlnulnK  blow  in  the  shape  of  such  an  increase  in  our  lumber  duties  as  would 
give  Michigan  the  control  of  the  markets  of  Chicago,  the  Eastern  Stales,  and  the 
seaboard;  total  exclusion  of  our  lumber  from  its  l>eHt  market;  total  shutting  out 
of  our  barley,  poultry,  eggs,  hides,  wool,  sheep,  pease,  potatoes,  and  other  agri- 
cultural proJncta  which  wo  now  sell  to  them  in  vast  iiuantlties,  and  perhaps  even 
a  refusal  to  allow  our  products  to  pass  through  American' territory  inland. 

Nothing  but  the  nuist  reckless  phase  of  luuocy  could  have  induceil  our  Govern- 
ment to  wantonly  invito  the  I'niteii  States  to  intllct  upon  us  the  blow  which  they 
have  power  to  deal  us.  Their  policy  is  bad  in  every  one  of  its  essential  features. 
In  its  uearing  upon  our  relations  with  the  0nited  States  It  is  a  bluiuler  so  vast  aa 
to  amount  to  a  crime.-  T'luunto  Otvhe,  Starch  "il,  1879. 

*  *  •  Although  thedtttoof  the  national  policy  wasnunounced,  ho  steadily  pur- 
sued the  policy  of  discharging  his  workmen,  and  altogether  up  to  last  Saturday  no  less 
than  seventy  uf  his  em)ilo.\  in  have  Iteen  dismissed,  and  it  is  probable  that  more  will 
follow  in  a  few  days ;  others  have  been  working  a  week  on  and  a  week  otF.  Where, 
then,  is  the  era  ot'  prosperity  promised  to  be  Inaugurated  oven  before  the  national 
policy  was  introduced  i  Sir  ./olui  X.  Maecbmald,  at  the  amphitheater,  wejit  tears 
over  the  condition  of  Sir.  Hay's  imfortunato  workmen  because  they  were  threttt> 
ened  with  lack  of  employment,  ami  yet  this  prince  of  hypocrites  coolly  increases 
the  price  of  their  tools  by  l-.'J  i)or  cent. 

The  poor  girls  and  seamstresses  v.'ho  are  trying  to  obtain  an  honest  livelihoo<l 
have  also  been  the  victims  of  the  government's  oppressive  legislation.  While  the 
manufacturer  or  capitalist  can  lui|)ort  bis  machinery  for  woolen  and  cotton  mills 
free,  the  poor  seamstress  or  tailor  has  to  pay  H  on  each  machine,  or  part  of  ma- 
chlno,  and '20  per  cent,  ad  va!oi'ein  additional.  .4.  large  number  of  these  deserving 
people  have  in  the  past  purchased  American  machines ;  aiul  should  they  break  any 
portion  of  a  machine,  no  matter  liow  large  or  how  small,  and  send  to  the  makers 
for  a  new  part,  |-J  iluty  will  be  charged.  Legislation  more  tyrannical  or  grinding 
on  the  poor  than  this  ban  scarcely  be  cited. 

Mr.  Soiuerville,  Toronto,  w.tson  this  deputation.  Mr.  Mlllscbamp,  Toronto,  show- 
case and  mirror  manufacturer,  Is  here  also.  He  protests  against  the  imposition  of 
the  increased  duties  on  the  raw  material. 

He  says  if  the  new  tarilf  is  maintained  It  will  close  his  business.  Mr.  MoFar- 
lane,  Montreal,  manufacturer  of  machine  belting  and  cards,  complains  that  the 
tariff  will,  unless  moditted,  close  his  business.    His  raw  material,  wire.  &c.,  has 


36 

been  largely  increased  in  cost  by  tbe  tariff,  anil  unless  a  modification  is  made  he 
will  have  to  suspend  operations  and  rumove  elsewliore. 

An  additional  duty  o{  3^  per  cent,  lias  been  placed  on  the  porcelain,  china,  and 
glasb  which  the  rich  purchase,  while  18}  per  ceat.  increase  has  been  put  on  the 
crockery  purchased  by  the  poor.  Truly  this  is  the  rich  man's  tariff. — Monetary 
Times,  Toronto,  1879. 

It  has  been  proposed  in  the  Canadian  Parliament  to  adopt  a  "  national  policy," 
or  in  other  words  a  recipitKiity  of  tarilTs,  as  a  means  of  compelling  the  United 
States  to  adopt  a  reciprocity  of  trade  with  Canada. 

There  may  be  good  policy  in  retaliations  when  two  powers  are  about  equally 
balanced  in  recard  to  extent  and  variety  ot  available  resources ;  but  as  regards  the 
Dominion,  sucTi  a  policy  could  hardly  fail  to  be  ruinous  to  her  own  interests. 

Her  sectional  interests  are  so  condiuting  that  she  cannot  adopt  a  system  of  pro- 
tection which  would  be  equally  Just  to  all  the  provinces.— Jfunro,  page  116. 

Similar  extracts  might  be  multiplied  to  an  indefinite  extent  to  sliow 
the  state  of  feeling  in  Canada  in  regard  to  their  new  tariff  system. 

Another  reason  why  the  present  is  especially  a  favorable  time  for 
entering  upon  the  consideration  of  this  question  with  Canada  is  that 
it  seems  to  be  to  a  certain  extent  a  crucial  time  iu  regard  to  our  own 
tariff.  A  modification  of  our  tariff  is  probable.  Probably  a  commis- 
sion will  be  appointed  by  resolution  of  Congress  to  take  the  whole 
question  of  the  tariff  into  consideration,  and  to  report  a  systematic, 
well-considered,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  a  permanent  and  scientific  plan 
for  a  tariff.  After  our  tariff  is  permanently  established  under  any 
new  code  it  will  be  difficult  to  change  it,  and  if  reductions  are  to  be 
made  in  it  we  cannot  use  those  reductions  "  after  the  fact "  to  obtain 
concessions  from  other  countries.  If  we  expect  iu  any  event  to  make 
concessions  or  reductions  of  the  tariff,  we  could  use  at  the  present 
time  those  concessions  to  obtain  other  concessions  from  Canada,  and 
if  Canada  refuses  we  might  make  our  tariff  with  entire  disregard  of 
her  wishes.  For  example,  there  is  a  groat  pressure  by  certain  Amer- 
ican interests  for  free  trade  iu  ships,  or  free  registration  of  fureign- 
bailt  ships,  and  in  behalf  of  many  shipping  interests  of  the  country 
it  is  claimed  that  this  is  the  one  tbiiig  necessary  fur  the  restoration  of 
American  commerce.  This  free  trade  in  ships  is  just  what  Canada 
desires.  If  our  people  from  American  iuterest  bring  about  free  trade 
in  ships,  we  gain  uofhing  from  Canada  by  the  coucessiuu,  but  Canada 
would  undoubtedly  be  willing  to  make  a  very  considerable  conces- 
sion in  some  way  for  the  purpo.«e  of  securing  from  us  that  free  trade. 
So  in  regard  to  salt  and  some  other  matters.  The  folio  wiug  statement 
was  made  in  a  recent  argument  by  J.  C.  Bates,  esq.,  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Affairs : 

3.  Again,  you  have  not  failed  to  note  the  signs  of  the  times.  The  enemies  of  the 
present  tarin  are  gathoving  preparing  to  attack  it.  Whetliar  thuy  will  be  siiccoss- 
nil  or  not  is  another  thing.  Uut  every  whore  the  feeling  exi^tts  that  tmoh  a  struggle  is 
near  at  hand.  Probably  this  country  will  not  see  any  higher  tarltl'thau  its  present 
one.  Now,  therefore,  is  the  time  to  take  the  initiative  In  nrrauging  her  traile  rela- 
tions with  other  couutries  Said  Lord  BeacoiiHfleld  recently,  when  waited  upon 
by  a  deputation  urging  hiui  to  take  measures  to  compel  other  couutries  to  adopt 
reciprocal  trade  with  Great  Uritaiu,  "  To  insist  on  reciprocity  with  other  countries 
would  be  impossible  now  that  we  have  ])arted  with  our  import  duties."  Again, 
last  spring  a  motion  was  submitted  iu  the  House  of  Lorils  that  in  all  future  com- 
mercial ucgotiatlous  with  other  countries  toailvocnto  a  jK)licy  of  loeiprocity  between 
all  ijter-trading  nations  ;  also  imiuiriug  into  the  liest  means  of  cuunternutiug  the 
injurious  etl'ects  of  tbe  excessive  taritl's  levied  by  foreign  nations  against  the  prod- 
uce and  manufiictures  of  Great  Uritain.  This  resolution  wai  negatived.  In  that 
debate  Lord  Ik-acousfleld  made  still  plainer  the  reasons  why  Great  Uritain  could  not 
enter  upon  the  jiroposud  policy.  He  said:  "  Thirty  ye.irs ago  we  hadalargenumbor 
of  articles  on  which  there  wore  import  duties.  There  were  no  such  materials  for 
reciprocal  trade  now.  The  opportunity  had  been  lost,  the  means  were  no  longer 
available,  ami  it  was  idle  to  talk  of  reciprocity  as  a  cure  for  existing  evils." 

Will  this  nation  allow  its  opportunity  to  be  lost  I  Here  is  an  interest  clamoring 
to  have  salt  put  on  the  free  list,  anotluir  for  the  registration  of  foreign  built  ships. 
Both  of  these,  if  they  are  to  bo  complied  with,  might  bo  used  to  advantage  to  tbe 
nation  iu  any  negotiations  with  Great  Britain. 


37 

For  these  and  other  reasons,  which  I  will  not  detain  the  Honse  by 
explaining,  I  believe  that  the  present  is  the  time  when  it  is  impor- 
tant that  we  should  move  iu  this  matter  and  that  delays  will  be 
dangerous.  I  submit  in  regard  to  the  subject  concernine  which  I 
have  presented  these  arguments,  that  I  have  demonstrated  that,  in 
the  first  place,  the  general  commerce  of  Canada  is  of  importance  to 
this  or  other  countries,  and ,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  special  com- 
merce of  Canada  with  the  United  States  is  of  value,  and,  iu  the  third 
place,  that  a  reciprocity  treaty  or  a  reciprocal  trade  with  Canada  ha» 
been  useful  to  the  United  States.  I  deny  that  the  trade  or  the  treaty 
has  been  more  for  the  benefit  of  Canada  thau  of  our  country,  and  I 
refer  for  proof  of  it  to  the  figures  and  statistics.  I  further  claim 
that  even  if  the  latter  statement  is  not  correct,  and  it  is  a  fact  that 
Canada  has  received  more  benefit  from  the  treniy  and  reciprocal 
trade  than  the  United  States,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  United 
States  was  not  benefited  by  the  trade  and  the  treaty.  It  is  a  com- 
plete non  aequitnr  to  say  that  because  Canada  was  more  benefited, 
therefore  the  TTnited  States  was  not  benefited,  and  is  as  complete  as 
the  famous  one  in  the  play  of  Box  and  Cox. 

Box.  Have  you  a  strrwberry  mark  on  yftur  left  arm  ? 

Cox.  No. 

Box.  Then  you  are  toy  Ipog-lost  brother. 

VI.— 18  THERE  ANY  XEED  OF  EXTKXlllXG  Oil  ENLARQINT.  OUR  MARKETS  ! 

It  would  seem  to  be  a  self  evident  proposition  in  the  political  econ- 
omy of  nations  that,  other  thiugs  being  equal,  the  larger  the  markets 
of  a  n&uii  n  the  greater  its  commercial  prosperity ;  and  in  view  of  the 
amazing  productions  of  all  climates  iu  our  country,  the  asking  of 
such  a  question  seems  absurd.  The  hearer  might  reply,  as  did  a  dis- 
tinguished judge  to  a  couusel,  instructing  him  in  certain  rudiments 
of  the  law,  that  "the  court  must  be  presumed  to  know  something." 
Yet  when  gentlemen  complacently  argue  that  we  do  not  care  for 
commercial  intercourse  with  a  country  which  in  importance  stands 
fifth  in  our  list  of  foreign  countries,  it  may  be  useful  for  them  to  con- 
template the  facts  for  a  moment  and  to  consider  the  above  question. 
As  the  almost  overwhelming  tide  of  emigration  rolls  in  upon  our 
country  and  our  population  mcreases  our  productions  increase,  even 
faster  proportionally  than  the  population.  Arms  and  fingers  and 
muscles  of  steel  perform  the  former  work  of  man  and  help  on  the 
vast  totals  of  production. 
For  the  year  1878  our  exports  from  agriculture  alone 

reached  the  enormous  sum  of >. .$336, 038, 951 

While  our  entire  exports  from  all  sources,  including 

agriculture,  for  1878,  amounted  to 695, 749, 930 

Total  exports,  less  agriculture 159, 710, 979 

The  total  cereal  products  of  the  United  States  in  1878  were  2,302,- 
254,950  bushels,  of  the  value  ot  ;*!»  13,975,920. 

In  1878  our  exports  of  livin<;  animals  amounted  to  $5,844,653 ;  of 
animals  and  their  products,  to  88,422,554 ;  of  provisious,  to  $117,953,- 
481 ;  of  bread  aud  breadstutt's,  to  .^181,777 ,'841 ;  of  textiles,  to  .^180,- 
143,052. 

Total  value  of  our  farm  products  in  1876  was  ■$1,542,194,000 ;  aud 
production  of  coal  iu  1878  was  l>',275,000  tons. 

In  1877  production  of  rolled  irou  amounted  to  1,476,759  tons,  and 
of  steel  to  637,342  tons. 

The  value  of  cotton  exported  in  1879  was  !J10,853,950. 

The  exports  of  uianufactniod  couimodities  lor  the  year  1879 
amounted  to  $89,921,443. 


38 

The  above  are  only  a  few  of  the  statistics  which  mif^ht  be  cited. 

The  distingnished  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs, 
in  his  recent  very  interesting  and  instructive  work,  ("  Free  Land  and 
Free  Trade :  The  Lessons  of  t]ie  English  Corn  Laws  applied  to  the 
United  States ;  by  Hon.  S.  S.  Cox,  lb80,")  thus  refers  to  our  great 
productions  and  need  of  enlarged  markets : 

The  tlieais  of  this  book  is  the  necessity  of  enlarKed  foreign  niaTkctfl  for  the  sur- 
plus of  production  from  farm  and  factory  in  the  IJuited  Stutes. 

We  are  rapidly  outgrowing  the  notion  that  a  monopoly  of  the  home  market  is  all 
we  need,  and  tliat  it  would  be  as  well  for  us  if  our  borders  were  surrounded  by 
oceans  of  fire.  The  fatness  of  the  land  is  forcing  us  to  broader  views ,-  our  amaz- 
ing natural  wealth  is  compelling  us  to  the  alteniatives  of  yielding  the  policy  of 
seiflshness  or  being  choked  with  oar  own  abundance.  *  *  *  Our  energy  and  skill 
harness  every  appliance  of  mechanical  force  to  plant,  gather  and  garner  the  amaz- 
ing result;  and  it  is  no  exaggora'lon  to  say  that  the  value  of  the  direct  product 
aggregates  12,500,000,000  per  year.  *  *  *  Here  is  the  question :  When  our  land 
really  shows  its  splendid  opulence ;  when  our  acreage  is  iucreased  both  for  cattle 
and  grain,  is  the  luevitabht  surplus  over  the  home  and  foreign  demand  to  remain 
with  us  to  glut  the  market? 

I  say  notliing  now  of  our  manufactures.  These  have  risen  from  |44  per  capita 
in  1850  to  9in  per  capita  in  1870,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  want  of  an 
outlet  for  the  heav^  surplus  was  one  of  the  leading  causes  of  the  industrial  dis- 
tress which  be^au  in  1873.  With  scarcely  any  increase  in  the  plant,  the  mills  of 
the  country  might  turn  out  double  and  tnple  their  present  product.  What  will  be 
the  end  of  this  amazing  development  of  our  native  riches  (  Will  our  surplus  go 
to  other  nations,  carrying  bcnehts  and  bringing  benefits  in  return,  or  for  lack  of 
those  mutual  conditions  which  make  trade  pDsslble,  is  the  flood  of  good  things  to 
be  dammed  in  its  passage  and  flung  back  upon  us  to  destroy  and  be  destroyed  ) 
These  are  questions  which  vehemently  press  for  answer. 

Every  farmer  from  the  Ked  River  of  the  North  to  the  Tcche  is  interested  in 
them,  and  not  less,  if  he  realizes  the  true  relations  of  his  trade,  every  manufact- 
urer who  has  not  the  fortune  to  possess  a  monopoly, 

\ai.— IS  THIS  THE  BEST  WAY  TO  MF.KT  THESE  QUEBTIONSi 

But  even  if  all  the  above  statements  are  proved  and  the  importance 
of  the  commerce  of  Canada  to  the  United  States  is  recognized,  the  op- 
ponents of  this  resolution  may  argue  that  the  appointment  of  a  com- 
mission is  not  the  best  way  to  meet  this  question.  But  I  submit  that 
for  many  reasons  thepe  vexed  questions  of  the  commercial  intercourse 
of  the  two  countries,  which  have  so  long  been  disturbing  elements 
between  them,  can  be  in  no  way  satisfactorily  or  permanently  settled 
excejjt  by  mutual  consultation  of  the  two  countries  through  properly 
appointed  and  empowered  delegates. 

MAGNITUDE  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

The  magnitude  of  this  question  has  been  referred  to  in  the  preced- 
ing part  of  my  argument  and  cannot  well  be  exaggerated.  The  ques- 
tion is  BO  large,  and  the  field  is  so  great,  and  the  interests  are  so  di- 
verse, there  are  so  many  different  kinds  of  productions  and  of  manu- 
factures which  may  be  vitally  affected  in  one  way  or  another  by  the 
results  of  legislation  on  this  subject,  that  it  is  impossible  that  the 
question  can  be  properly  considered  by  a  committee  of  Congress.  A 
committee  of  Congress  has  other  things  to  attend  to,  and  is  entirely 
nnable  to  devote  all  its  time  to  the  consideration  of  great  questions 
so  involved  and  so  important  as  are  these.  To  j)roperly  consider  and 
report  upon  this  question  of  reciprocal  trade  with  Canada  will  take 
the  most  patient  and  skillful  investigation,  and  will  employ  months 
at  least  of  the  time  of  the  most  industrious  experts.  It  is  a  task  of 
no  small  importance  and  responsibility  to  look  over  the  whole  vast 
field  of  the  United  States,  and  with  due  consideration  of  all  the  di- 
verse interests  of  the  different  States  to  endeavor  to  frame  a  tariff 
which  shall  keep  in  our  possession  the  trade  of  Canada,  while,  at  the 
same  time,  it  shall  not  be  iujurioas  to  any  of  the  great  interests  of  our 
own  country.    It  requires  no  argument  to  show  that  if  this  question 


•       .  39 

is  worth  a  proper  investigation,  it  can  only  be  investigated  by  a  com- 
mission especially  appointed  for  the  purpose.  This  commission  is 
necessary  for  two  things :  in  the  first  place,  to  collect  facts  and  sta- 
tistics and  to  report  opinions,  and,  in  the  second  place,  to  ascertain 
the  law  which  has  a  bearing  npon  the  subject-matter  of  this  resolu- 
tion. And  a  report  can  only  be  so  satisfactorily  made  as  to  give  any 
assurance  of  its  results  being  permanent  by  a  body  of  men  skilled  in 
the  law  and  experts  in  regard  to  mercantile  affairs,  who  shall  thor- 
oughly examine  all  the  points,  both  of  law  and  of  fact,  relating  to 
this  great  question. 

Vni.— 18  THBRL    iXY  GENERAL  DEMAND  FOB  THIS  f 

If  there  is  no  general  demand  for  this  and  the  people  on  both  sides 
of  the  line  do  not  wish  for  it,  it  might  well  he  argupo  that  we  should 
not  take  any  steps  in  this  direction  in  advance  of  public  opinion. 
Bat  such  a  ground  cannot  be  maintained. 

IN  CAXADA. 

The  old  reciprocity  treaty  was  repealed  in  opposition  to'  the  de- 
sires of  the  British  and  Canadian  government!^,  who  at  the  time  of 
the  proposed  repeal  expressed  themselves  as  ready  to  consult  with 
the  representatives  of  the  United  States,  with  a  view  to  the  satis- 
factory modification  of  the  treaty.  Nevertheless,  the  United  States, 
without  any  such  attempt  at  remedying  such  evils  as  existed  in  the 
treaty,  insisted,  for  the  reasons  which  have  been  stated,  on  its  abso- 
lute repeal.  From  that  time  to  the  present  the  Dominion  has  always 
been  ready  and  desirous  to  treat  with  the  United  States  fur  a  re- 
newal of  the  treaty  in  some  form.  They  have  always,  so  far  as  we 
can  judge  of  their  motives,  been  desirous  to  at  least  amicably  consult 
with  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  with  a  view  to  the  de- 
vising of  some  scheme  of  mercantile  intercourse  which  shall  be  satis- 
factory and  advantageous  to  both  countries. 

In  1873  the  Dominion  Board  of  Trade  presented  a  memorial  to  Earl 
Dufferin,  govern  or- general  of  Canada,  expressing  a  "  sincere  and  cor- 
dial desire  "  for  the  appointment  of  a  commission  to  confer  with  the 
representatives  of  the  United  States  for  the  ])iirpose  of  negotiating 
such  a  treaty  of  reciprocal  trade,  as  would  be  for  the  tnutual  advan- 
tage and  benefit  of  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  Dominion  and  the 
United  States.  The  Canadian  minister  of  customs,  the  privy  council, 
and  the  governor-general  fully  concurred  in  these  views.  From  time 
to  time  the  Dominion  Board  of  Trade  at  its  meetings  has  expressed 
the  general  sentiments  of  those  who  were  present,  and  it  is  believed 
by  the  board  that  the  feelings  of  the  merchants  and  the  people  of 
Canada  are  represented  in  a  declaration  that  it  is  desirable  that  a 
treaty  of  reciprocity  and  trade  on  a  comprehensive,  liberal,  and  fair 
basis  should  be  made.  It  also  stated  that  "  it  is  of  opinion  that  the 
initiatory  steps  thereto  ought  to  come  from  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  seeing  that  it  was  by  their  action  that  the  old  treaty 
was  abrogated."  So  far  as  is  known  the  people  and  the  representa- 
tives of  tne  merchants  of  the  Dominion  have  not  only  been  willing, 
but  anxious,  that  some  scheme  should  be  devised  for  bringing  into 
closer  commercial  contact  the  two  countries. 

IX  THE  LXITEU  STATES. 

In  regard  to  the  desire  for  this  in  the  United  States,  the  words  of 
the  report  of  the  committee,  which  I  now  quote,  can  be  verified  by 
the  most  ample  documentary  evidence  and  other  testimony.    It  says : 

At  one  time  or  another  the  most  of  the  commercial  organizations  of  the  country 
have  requested  that  action  be  taken  in  this  matter  by  their  boards  of  trade  and 
other  organizations.    The  merchants  of  New  York,  Baltioiore,  Portland,  Buffalo, 


40 

Milwaukee,  Boston,  and  all  other  cities  baye  requested  that  Congress  would  do  tO' 
the  bnsineas  interests  of  the  country  the  Justice  of  at  least  invesUeating  in  a  thor- 
oofih  and  proper  manner  whether  anything  can  be  done  by  leeisUtion,  and,  if  so, 
what  arrangements  should  be  made  between  the  two  countries.  The  National 
Board  of  Trade  has  frequently  urged  action  in  this  math- r,  and,  so  far  as  Icuown,  no 
commercial  or  representative  organization  of  any  kind  has  ever  said  a  word  or  pre- 
sented a  remonstrance  against  it.  Indeed  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  any  society 
or  Individual  could  remonstrate  against  a  resolution  simply  for  obtaining  knowl- 
edge and  information  upon  a  subject  of  the  importance  of  this. 

I  coald  make  evidence  on  this  point  cumulative  to  almost  any  ex- 
tent by  quoting  resolutions  of  commercial  organizations  or  letters  from 
distinguished  men  who  have  investigated  these  questions  and  have 
an  interest  in  them.  I  think  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  by 
means  of  resolutions  and  in  other  ways  it  can  be  shown  that  the  mer- 
cantile interests  of  the  country,  either  through  their  organizations  or 
otherwise,  never  desired  an  absolute  repeal  of  the  old  treaty  and  are 
in  favor  of  a  fall  investigation  of  the  question  whether  in  some  way 
new  commercial  relations  cannot  be  organized  with  the  Dominion  of 
Canada.  The  merchant  understands  better  than  anyone  else  that  it 
is  a  foundation  principle  of  the  political  economy  of  nations  that  one 
country  should  find  all  the  markets  it  can  in  other  countries,  and  no 
merchant  can  be  so  foolish  as  to  object  to  the  obtaining  of  informa- 
tion upon  this  question  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

THIS  yUESTlON  IMMATEUUL. 

This  question  of  the  demand  by  the  people  for  this  is,  however,  really 
immaterial.  If  members  of  Congress  are  of  opinion  that  fhe  subject  iS' 
of  importance  and  that  it  is  for  the  business  interests  of  the  country 
that  this  investigation  should  take  place,  it  is  their  duty  to  order  the 
investigation  upon  their  own  judgment  and  not  wait  to  be  pushed 
up  to  it  by  the  force  of  public  opinion.  This  is  one  of  those  great 
things  in  which  Congress  can  afford  to  lead  on  instead  of  being  driven 
by  the  people  and  in  which  it  is  our  duty  to  act  and  vote  according 
to  our  consciences  and  convictions. 

IX.— INJUSTICE  AND  DIBCRIMUiATION  IN  KEKU8IN0  THIS    INVKSTIOATION. 

Here  are  large  bodies  of  most  responsible  and  prominent  men  who 
ask  Congress — for  what  ?  For  a  treaty  1  No.  For  a  reciprocal  trade 
with  Canada  ?  No.  For  free  trade  with  Canada  t  No.  For  a  tariff 
to  be  framed  with  Canada  1  No.  For  any  law  or  legislation  what- 
ever f  No.  Merely  for  information  and  that  Congress  will  author- 
ize a  commission  to  gather  facts,  statistics,  and  knowledge  concern- 
ing a  question  of  great  importance.  That  is  all  they  ask  for,  and 
every  thing  that  can  be  found  in  or  rooted  out  of  the  resolution. 

It  is  simply  an  investigation  in  behalf  of  the  commercial  interests 
of  the  country.  How  can  Congress  refuse  such  an  investigation  f 
Investigations  in  behalf  of  commercial  interests  have  been  very  few ; 
and  it  will  be  difficult  for  members  to  recall  or  name  them.  Com- 
mittees have  been  appointed  to  inquire  into  almost  every  other  in- 
terest under  the  sun.  Great  expeditions  have  been  organized  at 
immense  cost  to  find  out  the  solution  of  the  apparently  useless  ques- 
tion of  the  existence  of  the  North  Pole.  Many  years  ago  an  expedi- 
tion or  commission  was  appointed,  and  a  large  and  very  costly  book 
published  about  it,  to  explore  the  river  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea. 
To  give  a  statement  of  the  investigating  committees  and  cotnmissions 
and  of  what  they  proposed  to  accomplish  for  the  last  twenty-five 
years  would  require  a  book  in  itself.  Upon  what  possible  plea  can 
Congress  refuse  this  very  modest  request  of  the  merchants  of  the 
country  for  information,  when  time  after  time  and  on  occasion  after 
occasion,  however  frivolous,  they  have  been  willing  to  appoint  com- 
mittees (perhaps  to  travel  over  the  country  at  great  expense)  for 
investigating  merely  political  questions? 


41 

The  history  of  political  investigatioDS  wonld  make  a  long  chapter. 
The  history  of  commercial  investigations  by  committees  or  commis- 
sions would  make  a  very  short  one.  I  repeat,  therefore,  that  to  refuse 
this  investigation  would  be  an  injustice  and  a  discrimination  which 
could  not  well  be  apologized  for  or  excused.  It  w  ill  require  very  little 
expense  to  pay  the  salaries  of  this  commission  and  other  incidental 
expenses,  but  if  it  required  a  very  large  expense  the  appointment  of 
a  commission  would  still  be  justified. 

X.— AKE  TIIEKE  ANY  OUJECTIOXH  TO  THE  RESOLUTION  ? 

Let  us  consider  very  briefly  a  few  of  the  principal  objections, 
mostly  sentimental,  which  have  been  urged  against  this  resolution. 
It  will  be  found  ou  an  analysis  of  these  objections  that  htttdly  any  of 
them  ate  objections  of  fact,  and  that  most  of  them  are  of  feeling  and 
sentiment.  Now,  I  submit  that  this  is  not  a  question  for  sentiment. 
It  is  simply  a  plain,  practical  doUar-and-cent  question  of  what  is  for 
the  financial  and  commercial  interests  of  this  country,  without  any 
regard  to  our  sentiments  of  friendship  or  hostility  concerning  Canada. 

FEEU.NO  OF  HOSTILITY  TO  CANADA. 

It  is  claimed  by  some  that  we  should  not  show  any  humility  or 
weakness,  as  they  are  pleased  to  call  it,  concerning  Canada,  and  that 
it  shows  a  disposition  to  "  back  down  "  for  us  now  to  consider  the 
question  of  treating  in  any  way  with  the  Dominion.  It  is  true  that 
some  of  the  relations  of  Canada  to  the  United  States  have  been  most 
unsatisfactory.  Bitterness  of  feeling  grew  up  in  this  country  against 
the  Dominion  of  Canada  during  the  civil  war,  which  feeling  has  never 
wholly  died  out.  The  fisheries  ((uestion  has  always  been  an  open  and 
disputed  one  between  the  two  countries,  and  has  lately  imbittered 
still  more,  and  for  the  most  just  reasons  on  our  part,  the  two  countries 
against  each  other.  I  shall  briefly  refer  to  that  ([uestion  in  a  few 
moments.  The  two  countries  now,  commercially  speaking,  stand  in  a 
hostile  attitude  to  each  other.  All  the  treaties  are  abolished  or  are 
probably  to  be  abolished  in  regard  to  commercial  matters.  The  two 
nations  occupy  a  position  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  two  boys 
standing  opposite  to  each  other,  with  their  fists  doubled  up,  scowling 
at  one  another,  refusing  to  speak,  and  each  with  a  chip  on  hia  shoulder 
which  he  requests  the  other  to  knock  off.  The  question  is,  who  will 
speak  first,  and  the  feeling  seems  to  be  that  the  one  who  speaks  first 
shall  be  regarded  as  a  coward.  Now  this  is  all  very  well  between 
boys,  or  even  men,  but  two  great  nations  cannot  atford  to  maintain 
this  undignified  attitude,  and  it  cannot  be  maintained  for  any  length 
of  time,  because,  sooner  or  later,  these  vexed  questions  must  be  in 
some  way  settled,  and  will  ,be  settled. 

It  is  true  we  have  been  sadly  disappointed  with  the  results  of  some 
commissions  and  pleased  with  the  results  of  others,  but  wh^n  two 
nations  occupy  the  present  attitude  of  Canada  and  the  United  States 
the  only  way  to  do,  and  the  wiiy  which  must  sooner  or  later  be  taken, 
is  for  them,  by  a  commission  or  otherwise,  to  mutually  consult  and 
see  if  these  grievances  cannot  be  adjusted.  Dumbness  on  either  side 
will  not  do  any  good.  Canada  is  not  foolish  enough  to  think  for  a 
moment  that  we  approach  such  a  discussion  from  feelings  of  weak- 
ness or  fear.  If  there  is  to  be  a  war  of  tarifis,  we  can  wnip  Canada 
in  every  respect,  to  put  the  truth  in  the  plainest  language.  Canada 
understands  that,  with  our  vast  extent  of  territory  and  our  .vast 
foreign  commerce  and  the  great  number  of  countries  we  have  to  sup- 
ply, she  is  not  in  the  slightest  degree  a  necessity  to  us,  though  she 
maybe  an  advantage;  and  she  also  fully  understands  that,  pecu- 
liarly situated  as  she  is,  the  United  States  are  to  her,  as  it  were,  » 


42 

mercantile  necessity,  and  that  if  the  United  States  are  shut  oflf  by 
barriers  from  her,  great  suffering  ninst  result  to  her  people.  If  Can- 
ada insists  on  a  contest  we  can  give  it  to  her  to  her  heart's  content. 
Iler  writers  and  her  speakers,  her  government  and  her  press,  under- 
stand this  thoroughly,  and  some  oi  them  have  ridiculed  in  stronger 
terms  than  we  could  use  the  idea  of  Canada's  fighting  with  the  United 
States.  At  present  we  cau  afford  to  treat  Canada  with  that  good 
humor  with  which  a  great  power  treats  a  small  one,  and  if  she  pushes 
her  hostility  to  us  to  the  point  at  which  it  becomes  too  troublesome, 
then  Canada  will  be  made  to  understand  that  we  can  injure  her  to  a 
far  greater  extent  than  she  possibly  cau  injure  us,  and  that  what 
means  only  lujary  to  us  would  very  likely  mean  financial  ruiu  and 
disaster  to  her.  The  contest  is  not  an  equal  one,  and  we  cau  afford, 
as  the  leading  power,  to  make  overtures  to  Canada  to  secure  amica- 
ble trade  relations  if  posslblo. 

For  instance,  it  is  of  great  importance  to  the  Dominion  to  retain 
her  carrying  trade  on  the  ocean,  and  she  has  a  large  trade  of  this 
kind  employed  in  bringing  sugar  to  American  ports.  Suppose  Con- 
gress should  reduce  the  duties  on  all  sugars  brought  to  our  ports, 
provided  they  were  not  brought  in  Canadian  vessels.  Or  suppose  it 
should  reduce  duties  eveu  to  a  small  extent  ( which  would  make  no 

great  difference  in  the  revenues  or  protection)  on  other  articles 
rought  to  us  by  American  vessels,  which  proceeding  would  at  the 
same  time  hurt  Canadian  vessels  and  benefit  us  by  fostering  our  ship- 
piug  interests.  Suppose  the  contest  as  to  the  fishery  question  goes 
on,  and  we  put  prohibitory  duties  on  fish ;  or  that  in  numerous  other 
ways  which  can  be  pointed  out,  and  will  suggest  themselves,  we  en- 
ter upon  a  tariff  or  commercial  war  with  Canada;  cau  any  Canadian 
doubt  that  we  can  push  her  to  the  wall  f  Our  Canadian  brothers 
might  as  well  recognize  the  fact  first  as  last  that  we  do  not  propose 
to  be  dictated  to,  but  that  we  are  amiable  enough  and,  to  tell  the 
truth,  have  enough  self  interest  to  desire  friendly  commercial  rela- 
tions; yet,  if  the  necessity  arises,  we  can  destroy  those  relations  and 
still  be  a  prosperous  country.  It  will  be  unwise  in  us,  and  I  think 
that  we  all  recognize  the  fact,  unless  forced  into  it  by  Canada,  to 
allow  any  feelings  of  hatred  or  feelings  of  dislike  for  our  Canadian 
brethren  to  stand  in  the  way  of  an  attempt,  at  least^  to  have  har- 
monious commercial  relations  between  the  two  countries. 

DB8IUE  TO  FOKCE  ANNEXATION. 

I  have  heard  prominent  gentlemen,  who  have  investigated  this 
question  to  some  extent,  say  that  they  were  opposed  to  having  com- 
mercial relations  with  Canada,  because  if  those  relations  were  en- 
tirely destroyed  and  Canada  thereby  put  into  a  position  where  she 
must  suffer  greatly,  if  not  meet  financial  ruin,  she  would  therefore  be 
ready  fur  annexation,  and  the  territory  of  the  United  States  might 
be  extended  northward,  so  that  its  boundaries  would  be  three  oceans. 
I  do  not  believe  that  this  argument  would  have  any  weight  as  against 
the  resolution.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  people  of  this  country  have  yet 
arrived  at  the  point  where  they  are  prepared  to  say  that  they  desire 
annexation.  I  am  doubtful  whether  Canada  has  yet  arrived  at  the 
condition  of  prosperity  in  which  she  will  not  become  to  us  more  of  a 
burden  than  of  a  benefit.  Her  debt  has  been  and  is  increasing  out  of 
all  proportion  to  her  population.  Her  debt  in  1867  was  |75,7'28,641, 
while  in  1877  it  was  $133,208,694,  and  it  is  estimated  that  in  1881  her 
debt  will  amount  to  $170,000,000;  in  1891  to  $250,000,000,  and  1901  to 
$300,000,000.  The  total  debt,  including  what  is  due  on  existing  con- 
tracts, is  about  $200,000,000.    Her  financial  showing  is  not  a  favorable 


43 

one.  While  the  balance  of  trade  since  the  anion  of  the  provinces  in 
1867  has  been  against  the  Dominion  to  the  amonnt  of  $'229,696,336,  dur- 
ing the  same  time  her  publicdebthasbeen  doabledand  the  taxes  on  ac- 
count of  the  general  government  rose  from  |13,480,092  to  $24,48d,'372. 
The  interest  on  the  public  debt  is  about  $7,000,000  per  annum,  and 
the  state  of  the  finances  is  snch  that  additional  taxes  will  have  to  be 
imposed  in  a  short  time. 

So,  I  submit,  in  the  first  place,  we  are  not  prepared  to  say  that  we 
want  annexation,  and  that  question  is  one  of  grave  importance,  re- 
quiring careful  consideration  ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  there  is  no 
evidence  as  yet  that  Canada  is  prepared  for  or  desires  annexation ; 
and,  in  the  third  place,  it  would  seem  that  a  desire  for  annexation 
would  be  fostered  more  by  building  up  commercial  relations  and 
friendly  feeling  and  brotherly  love  between  the  two  countries  than 
by  turning  them  into  bitter  enemies.  It  is  certaiuly  a  new  axiom  of 
human  conduct  as  well  as  of  political  economy  that  to  make  two  men 
friends  and  brothers  the  best  way  is  to  cause  them  to  hate  each  other 
as  much  as  possible. 

FEELINO  AS  TO  THE  FISIIEUY  QUEBTIONB. 

As  to  these  questions  I  shall  speak  briefly  hereafter.  Sufilce  it  to  say 
that  there  is  neither  logic  nor  reason  in  taking  the  ground  that  be- 
cause we  have  been  wronged  therefore  we  will  not  speak  to  Canada 
nor  have  any  consultation  with  her  whatever  in  order  to  see  if  these 
commercial  difficulties,  as  well  as  others,  cannot  be  settled. 

OUJECTIOSS  TO  THE  FOBMEU  UECirBOCITY  TREATY. 

As  I  have  said,  these  objections  are  not  pertinent  here  and  are  not 
entitled  to  the  slightest  weight.  I  only  refer  to  it  again  under  this 
heading  because  this  argument  against  the  former  reciprocity  treaty 
is  constantly  pushed  forward  with  wearisome  iteration  as  the  stock 
argument  against  this  resolution. 

AKOUMENT  THAT  IT  IS  IMPOSSIBLE  TO  AOIiEE. 

Another  objection  that  is  raised  is  the  weak  and  despairing  sugges- 
tion that  there  is  no  use  in  trying  this  thing,  because  nothing  can  be 
accomplished  and  it  is  impossible  to  agree.  The  advocates  of  this 
doctrine  are  afraid  to  attack  the  question  and  propose  to  lie  quietly 
down  and  give  it  all  up,  let  the  commerce  of  the  two  countries  drift 
on  wherever  it  may,  and  trust  to  fate.  They  propose  to  follow  the 
Turkish  plan  of  crossing  their  arms  and  rolling  up  their  eyes  and  say- 
ing, "It  IS  fate."  Perhaps  it  is  impossible  to  agree ;  but  it  certainly 
is  worth  the  while  to  make  the  attempt.  If  all  great  questions  before 
Congress  are  to  be  laid  helplessly  aside  with  the  reflection  that  it  is 
impossible  to  do  so  great  a  work,  we  might  as  well  give  up  all  at- 
tempts at  legislation  or  at  the  management  of  the  interests  of  the 
country.  We  do  not  know  that  something  cannot  be  done  until  the 
attempt  has  been  made ;  and  there  is  every  reason  to  hope  that  some- 
thing at  least  can  be  accomplished  in  the  direction  of  reciprocal  trade. 

Between  a  complete  arrangement  for  reciprocal  trade  in  all  articles 
and  the  present  condition  of  trade  there  are  many  intermediate  steps 
and  it  may  be  that  if  we  can  only  take  one  of  these  steps  to  bring  arouu  d 
trade  in  only  one  article,  it  may  be  an  advantage  to  our  country  as 
well  as  to  Canada.  Mr.  Ward,  in  his  argument  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, May,  1876,  spoke  as  follows  : 

It  ought  not  to  be  diffioult  to  agree  upon  the  basis  of  a  common  tariff  on  all  arti- 
cles, such  as  silks,  laces,  brandies,  wines,  jewelry,  &o.,  the  importation  of  which 
is  taxed  only  for  revenue  and  in  regard  to  which  no  irreconcilable  differences  of 
politico-economical  theory  arise,  oi'  to  determine  the  terms  of  an  equitable  division 
of  the  revenue  collected  from  .them  in  common.  If  this  only  were  done  the  most 
extensive  smuggling,  from  which  the  revenue  of  the  United  States  suffers,  would 


44 

be  itopped  aod  onr  pnblic  TreMory  would  be  the  gainer  by  many  millions.  Some, 
at  leaat,  of  the  manufactares  and  raw  prodncts  of  each  oountry'coold  be  admitted 
to  free  exuhange  with  those  of  the  other. 

It  is  hoped,  and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  by  a  fall  examina- 
tion by  the  representatives  of  the  two  governments,  some  common 
ground,  at  least  as  to  some  articles  of  commerce,  might  be  found. 

XI.— THE  FIBHBKY   gt'EBTION. 

The  argument  is  made  against  this  resolution  from  prominent  quar- 
ters that  it  ought  not  to  be  passed  while  the  fishery  question  is  in 
abevance,  but  I  submit  that  this  is  one  of  the  very  reasdns  why  it 
onght  to  be  passed.  Ever  since  the  formation  of  the  two  govern- 
ments this  has  been  the  great  question  in  dispute  between  the  two 
countries,  and  several  treaties  nave  been  made  concerning  it.  The 
Washington  treaty  of  May  2C,  1871,  for  twelve  years,  expires  in  1883. 
I  need  not  refer  to  the  present  position  of  the  fishery  question.  It 
is  not  worth  the  time  to  discuss  the  past  diflBcnlties.  The  question, 
wfiich  confronts  us  is,  how  to  meet  and  get  rid  of  the  present  diffi- 
culties. The  substance  of  the  Washington  treaty  was  this:  That 
United  States  fishermeti  should  have  the  right  to  shore-fishing  in  the 
provinces,  while  fish-oil  and  fish  of  all  kinds  should  be  admitted  into 
each  country  free  of  duty. 

The  considerations  urged  were  our  having  the  right  to  fish  and  their 
having  the  right  to  sell  fish  to  the  United  States  free.  Our  rights  have 
been  infringed,  and  the  people  of  the  United  States  naturally  feel 
indignant,  not  only  at  the  exorbitant  [)rice  they  have  been  compelled 
to  pay,  under  the  decision  of  the  commission,  but  at  the  invasion  and 
denial  of  their  rights,  as  shown  by  the  Fortune  Bay  outrages.  Every 
man,  at  least  on  the  American  side  of  the  line,  believes  that  a  com- 
mission which  obliged  us  to  pay  $5,500,000  for  the  right  to  fish  in 
those  waters  committed  an  outrage.  It  seems  apparent,  even  on  the 
most  superficial  view  of  the  question,  that  we  ought  not  to  have  paid 
anything,  and  that  the  Dominion  in  regard  to  this  fishery  question 
has  received  from  us  much  more  benefit  than  it  ever  gave.  It  seems 
to  be  demonstrated  as  clearly  as  statistics,  mathematics,  and  reason 
can  demonstrate  it  that  a  balance  of  the  benefits  from  the  fishery 
trade  and  from  the  intercourse  between  the  two  countries  on  account 
of  the  fishery  was  very  largely  in  t&yor  of  the  Dominion,  and  if  any 
money,  equitably  or  honestly,  onght  to  have  been  paid,  it  shonld  have 
been  paid  to  the  United  States.  I  think  that  we  are  justified  in  feel- 
ing that  we  have  not  had  fair  treatment,  and  if  the  unwritten  as 
well  as  the  written  history  of  that  commission  is  to  be  believed,  that 
in  regard  to  the  formation  of  the  commission  and  to  its  proceedings 
and  its  mode  of  estimating  damages  and  the  way  in  which  it  figured 
up  those  damages  and  afterward  changed  the  figures  and  arrived  at 
its  final  results,  and  in  fact  in  ail  its  doings,  we  were,  to  put  it  very 
mildly,  overreached ;  a  vigorous  use  of  language  would  allow  us  to 
say  that  we  were  swindled. 

It  certainly  has  the  appearance  of  being  what  in  border  phrase 
would  be  called  a  "  put  ujp  job."  I  believe  that  at  the  earliest  possi- 
ble moment  compatible  with  our  national  honor,  which  is  bound  to 
the  observance  of  treaties  according  to  the  terms  thereof  and  law  ap- 

Elicable  thereto,  retaliation  should  be  made  by  means  of  duties  on  fish 
rought  into  our  market.  If  the  treaty  was  unfair,  and  we  have  been 
wronged  by  being  obliged  to  pay  a  large  amount  of  money,  which 
we  ought  not  to  have  paid,  and  now  (besides  paying  the  money)  are 
prevented  from  fishing  freely  where  the  treaty  gives  us  the  right  to 
fish,  we  ought,  having  those  disadvantages,  to  secure  for  ourselves 
benefits  by  abolishing  the  treaty  and  retaliating  upon  the  Canadians. 


45 

Where,  then,  do  we  now  stand  f  The  two  nations  stand  facing  each 
other  with  this  tlshery  question  undetermined,  the  right  to  Ssh  in 
Canadian  waters  taken  from  us  and  the  right  to  sell  fish  in  our  mar- 
kets taken  from  them,  or  that  is  the  position  the  two  nations  will 
occupy  if  the  present  propositions  are  carried  oat.  In  other  words, 
the  two  countries  stand  entirely  independent  of  each  other,  with  all 
the  work  of  agreeing  upon  propositions  of  tiade  to  be  done  over 
again  and  with  the  necessity  of  making,  if  possible,  some  arrange- 
ment.   This  is  purely  a  question  of  money  and  not  of  feeling. 

If  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  this  fishery  question  should  not  be 
settled,  but  should  remain  permanently  in  its  present  condition,  and 
that  the  twqcounti'ies  as  to  tiuh  and  fishiug-gronnds  can  stand  entirely 
independent'  of  each  other,  and  each  leave  the  other  to  enjoy  merely 
its  own  independent  rights,  thou  no  other  negotiation  is  uocessarv  ; 
but  I  assume  that  this  is  not  the  case,  and  that  it  is  desirable  in  the 
interest,  perhaps  even  of  peace,  and  certainly  in  the  interests  of  com- 
merce, that  this  question  should  be  determined.  How  shall  it  be  de- 
termined? Certainly  it  cannot  be  determined  by  the  two  nations  fac- 
ing each  other  and  abusing  each  other.  Certainly  it  cannot  be  deter- 
mined by  the  two  nations  stiuuliug  up  and  calling  each  other  by  hard 
names,  and  shaking  their  iists  at  each  other.  Certainly  it  cannot  be 
determined  by  the  two  nations  turning  sulky  and  absolutely  refusing 
to  consider  any  propositions  or  to  make  any  approaches.  The  only 
way  in  which  it  can  be  determined  is  by  another  attempt  through 
representatives  of  the  two  countries  to  agree  on  some  common  basis 
of  commercial  trade. 

A  new  government  has  come  into  power  in  England,  and  one  which, 
it  is  believed,  will  meet  this  question  in  an  open  and  manly  way ;  and 
this  fishery  question,  in  my  opinion,  ofiers  one  of  the  strongest  rea- 
sons for  the  desirability  of  a  commission.  How  else  can  you  settle  it 
except  by  au  investigation  and  by  a  commission  ?  Both  governments 
have  not  the  power  of  talking  and  consulting  as  governments  except 
through  commissions  or  through  other  mouth-pieces.  The  officials  of 
the  governments  can  themselves  only  investigate  through  commis- 
sions or  other  oflScials.  Soouor  or  later  this  plan  must  be  adopted  ; 
and  is  it  not  better  to  move  iu  this  direction  at  the  present  time,  and 
to  now  endeavor  iu  this  critical  position  of  affairs  to  obtain  some 
thorough,  well-digested,  and,  it  is  hoped,  some  permanent  scheme  for 
enabling  the  two  countries,  as  to  their  fishery  and  other  commercial 
questions,  to  live  together  iu  harmony  f 

XII. — AUK  TIIEBE  ANV  LEGAL  UUJKCTIONS  T(J  THE  rUOrOSED  UE30LUTI0S  ? 

I  shall  refer  very  briefly  to  the  objections  of  this  nature  which  have 
been  urged  against  the  resolution  under  discussion.  Iu  the  first  place 
the  complete  answer  to  all  such  objections  is  that  this  is  only  a  reso- 
lution for  information  and  iu(jiiiry,  and  if  any  lawyers  in  this  House 
can  show  in  the  Coustitutiou  or  the  statutes  any  reason  why  it  is  im- 
proper or  illegal  to  obtain  knowledge  or  information,  I  should  like  to 
be  informed  of  that  statute  and  that  article  iu  the  Constitution.  One 
of  the  very  objects  of  this  commission  is  to  ascertain  if  there  are  any 
such  legal  objections,  and  to  examine  thoroughly  into  all  the  aspects 
of  the  case.  This  consideration,  I  submit,  disposes  entirely  and  at 
once  of  all  legal  objections  to  the  proposed  resolution,  but  I  desire  to 
refer  brfefly  to  the  principal  objections  of  that  nature  which  have 
been  made.  It  has  been  claimed  that  a  reciprocity  treaty  with  Can- 
ada cannot  be  made,  becau.se  a  treaty  can  only  be  made  by  the  Presi- 
dent and  the  Senate,  whereas  all  revenue  matters  or  matters  affect- 
ing tariff  are  exclusively  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress.  The 
treaty-making  power  consists  of  the  President  and  Senate,  the  law- 


40 

makioff  power  oonsists  of  the  Senate  and  Honsn  and  President,  the 
latter  naving  ouly  the  power  of  siBning  or  vetoing  bills.  To  the 
treaty-making  power  belongs  exclusively  the  power  to  make  treaties, 
and  to  the  law-making  power  the  power  to  make  tariff  lans.  Hence 
it  is  argued  that  the  treaty-making  power  cannot  affect  trade  by 
means  of  any  tarifl"  provisions.  This  nuestion  may  be,  under  some  oir- 
oamstances,  of  great  importance ;  and  as  you  approach  it,  it  expands 
to  such  an  extent  that  to  properly  treat  of  it,  historicallv,  legally, 
and  otherwise,  would  require  a  book  of  itself.  The  distinguisheif  gen- 
tleman from  New  Jersey,  [Mr.  RouESON,]  who  is  a  member  of  the 
committee  reporting  this  resolution,  suggested  at  a  hearing  before  the 
committee  that  tiiese  questions  might  well  be  treated  under  the  fol- 
lowing beads:  , 
1.  Ig  the  tieatytuaking  power  of  the  President  aud  Sunate  oxclnsive ) 
3.  Is  the  rureiiiio  power  of  Congrvsa  uf  such  a  nature  us  to  Klve  it  excluslTe 
power  over  this  »Hl>ji'ct? 

3.  Is  a  reciprocal  niTiingomeut  necessarily  unitiT  the  treatyniakinj;  power! 

4.  If  the  treaty-making  power  Is  not  exclusive  is  it  lestniluod  by  the  ueoessity 
of  action  by  Congress  upon  any  subject  whlel<.  aiiects  the  ri'venue  J 

5.  Are  these  two  points  coexiatlnj; ?  that  is  to  say,  may  tlie  treaty-making 
power  act,  and  are  all  treaties  referring  to  subjects  in  the  power  of  Congress,  how- 
ever complete  in  themselves,  suliject  to  the  subsequent  action  of  Congress  1 

6.  Is  the  action  of  Congress  subject  to  the  treaty-making  power  I 

It  will  be  seen  that  a  full  discussion  of  this  question  in  all  its  bear- 
ings would  expand  this  argument  to  an  extent  incompatible  with  the 
ordinary  limits  of  a  speech  in  this  body,  and  would  require  much  in- 
vestigation to  consider  in  a  satisfactory  manner.  It  seems  to  me, 
however,  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  upon  this  question ;  that  the 
treaty-making  power  cannot  directly  or  indirectly  infringe  upon  or 
interfere  with  tlie  law-making  power.  The  treaty-making  power  has 
certain  specified  rights  aud  the  law-making  power  other  specified 
rights,  and  each  is  independent  of  the  other.  The  treaty-making 
power  cannot  do  indirectly  what  it  cannot  do  directly,  and  if  the 
right  to  impose  a  tariff  on  certain  articles  belongs  exclusively  to  the 
law-making  power,  it  is  clear  that  the  President  and  Senate  cannot 
by  any  mode  change  or  aflect  the  tariff  on  those  articles.  If  the  con- 
verse of  the  proposition  is  true,  it  leads  to  most  absurd  results. 

If  by  means  of  a  reciprocity  treaty  or  any  treaty  with  a  foreign 
country  the  treaty-making  power  can  provide  that  u  tariff  shall  be  of 
a  certain  amount  on  certain  articles,  it  can  thus  provide  a  tariff  for 
all  articles.  All  our  tariffs  come  from  trade  with  foreign  countries, 
and  the  President  aud  Senate,  by  means  of  treaties  with  those  foreign 
countries,  could  thus  fix  the  tariff  on  all  possible  articles  coming  into 
this  country  and  make  up  an  entire  tariff  schedule.  Nay,  more,  if  the 
treaty-making  power  co'uld  do  thi(>,  why  could  it  not,  whenever  it 
might  be  done  by  means  of  a  treaty,  establish  what  the  amount  of 
our  bonds  should  be  or  how  they  should  be  issued  or  what  percentage 
of  interest  they  should  pay ;  make  navigation  laws  for  our  country ; 
enact  in  treaties  emigration  laws,  at  the  request  and  by  the  consent 
of  foreign  governments  interested  in  these  questions,  (because  emi- 
gration is  coming  to  our  shores  by  hundreds  of  thousands,)  or  provide 
as  to  the  mode  of  the  settlement  of  our  public  accounts,  and  in  fact 
act  as  a  law-making  power,  and  include  in  its  own  powers  almost  the 
whole  field  c  i  legislation  f  Without  going  at  further  length  into 
this  question,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  treaty-making  power  exclu- 
sively can  affect  the  tariff  and,  by  means  of  the  tariff,  the  trdde  with 
foreign  countries. 

I  submit,  however,  that  this  question  is  of  not  the  slightest  impor- 
tance here.  It  has  never  been  proposed  in  the  discussion  of  this  reso- 
lution to  have  the  treaty-making  power  exclusively  take  charge  of 


47 

this  question,  otberwiae  this  resolution  would  not  be  pending  in  the 
Honse  of  Representatives.  The  question  does  not  arise  in  any  waj 
in  this  discussion.  Suppose  a  scheme  of  reciprocal  trade  can  be  de- 
vised between  the  United  States  and  Canada ;  you  may  entitle  it 
reciprocal  trade  or  a  reciprocal  treaty  or  a  reciprocal  taritf.  using 
whatever  words  you  choose  to  describe  the  scheme  or  the  means  of 
carrying  it  out.  If  it  shall  be  framed  as  a  reciprocal  treaty,  it  has 
never  been  desired  that  such  a  treaty  should  be  curried  out  and  made 
law  by  the  treaty- making  power,  without  the  consent  of  the  House, 
and  certainly  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  if  the  House  and  Senate  con- 
coct this  tariif  scheme  and  formulate  it  into  the  shape  of  a  treaty  or 
other  law,  such  a  treaty  or  scheme  may  not  bo  made  by  the  consent 
of  the  Senate,  the  House,  and  the  President.  The  law  or  treaty  would 
then  be  made  by  both  the  treaty-making  and  the  law-making  powers. 
This  would  at  once  remove  all  questions,  and  this  is  all  that  is  in- 
tended, and  the  House  ah  initio  in  this  resolution  becomes  a  party  to 
the  proceedings.  But,  again,  no  question  need  arise,  because  this  nec- 
essarily need  not  be  a  treaty. 

Suppose  that  this  commission  reports  a  certain  tariff  scheme  of  re- 
ciprocal trade,  and  that  th.at  scheme  is  formulated  into  a  bill  and  pre- 
sented to  Congress  for  its  action.  Congress  by  the  consent  of  the 
President  passes  this  as  a  tariff  or  trade  bill,  and  it  contains  a  sec- 
tion or  proviso  that  it  shall  go  into  force  or  effect  only  when  a  similar 
bill,  which  formnlates  the  same  scheme,  shall  be  passed  by  the  British 
Parliament  or  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  and  shall  continue  in  force 
only  according  to  the  terms  of  the  same  joint  scheme.  This  bill 
would  have  the  consent  of  all  the  three  departments  of  this  Govern- 
ment, and  would  embrace  both  the  treaty-making  and  the  law-makine 
powers.  No  one  can  contend  for  a  moment  that  such  a  scheme  would 
not  be  perfectly  lawful.  In  fact  this  whole  objection  is  the  merest 
criticism  on  words.  It  would  be  applicable  and  applicable  only  If  it 
was  intended  to  try  to  get  from  the  Senate  and  the  President  a  re- 
ciprocal treaty  without  the  concurrence  of  the  House;  but  the  con- 
verse of  the  proposition  being  true,  the  argument  is  utterly  worthless 
and  falls  to  the  ground.  If,  nowever,  this  question  shall  become  of 
importance,  it  is  one  of  those  great  questions  which  we  desire  the 
commission  to  investigate  and  report  upon.  They  will  report  upon 
tho  question  how,  if  they  can  ngree  on  any  mutual  system  of  trade, 
it  shall  be  formulated  into  law.  They  may  find  it  necessary  to  fully 
investigate  and  report  upon  these  legal  questions,  but  as  objections 
at  this  stage  of  the  case  they  have  no  weight  or  force. 

"  FAV0UEIJ-NAT10?(S  "   CLAUSES  Hi  TBEATIE8. 

The  only  objection  remaining  which  I  wish  to  consider,  and  to  which 
I  shall  very  briefly  refer,  is  the  above.  It  has  been  claimed  that  it  is 
impossible  for  us  to  make  any  system  of  reciprocal  trade  with  Canada, 
because  under  the  "favored-nations"  clauses  in  treaties  we  should  be 
obliged  to  give  the  same  advantages  to  other  countries  as  to  the  Do- 
minion of  Canada.  It  may  be  said  in  reference  to  this  proposition 
that  the  position  of  Canada  is  an  exceptional  one,  and,  giving  the 
strongest  construction  to  this  clause  in  treaties,  the  utmost  that  can 
be  claimed  is  that  any  nation  shall  have  precisely  the  same  privileges 
as  any  other  nation.  Now,  suppose  that  we  make  a  treaty  of  recip- 
rocal trade  with  Canada  on  account  of  her  peculiar  position,  her  pe- 
culiar relations  of  commerce  and  of  transportation,  or  otherwise,  or 
on  account  of  the  returns  which  she  can  make  to  us  in  regard  to  her 
fisheries,  &c.,  and  these  peculiarities  of  condition  and  of  compensa- 
tion and  of  intercourse  are  the  cause  of  the  treaty.  Certainly  no 
other  government  can  claim  an  equal  privilege  unless  she  can  snow 


48 

the  same  co'uditious  and  ofTor  the  same  privilogeM  that  Canada  does. 
For  example,  beoanse  we  want  from  Canada  the  right  of  tifthing, 
and  for  thJH  as  well  as  for  other  purposes  make  the  treaty,  France 
and  England  cannot  cliiiin  the  same  taritV  on  their  articles,  unless 
they  4ive  to  ns  the  same  Consideration,  niunely,  the  right  of  fishing 
and  such  right  under  the  same  cirrnmstnnces  and  on  the  same  tlsh- 
ing-grounds,  or  unless  they  can  show  they  are  contiguous  to  our 
border,  with  the  same  mutual  advantages  of  railroads,  water  com- 
niunication,  and  the  same  need  of  each  other,  and  the  same  depend- 
ence on  each  other.  This  treaty  will  not  depend  on  the  mere  question 
of  the  taritt',  but  on  all  questions  of  intercourse  botween  the  two 
countries.  I  do  not  beg  the  ipiestion,  as  I  might  by  saying  that  these 
treaties  have  heretofore  been  made,  and  that  it  lias  never  been  claimed 
that  treaties  made  from  peculiar  circumslanuus,  or  for  reasons  par- 
ticular and  individual  to  countries,  can  be  shared  as  to  their  advan- 
tages with  all  other  countries.  For  example,  we  made  the  duty  on 
flsu  free  to  the  Canadians  because  a;i  a  consideration  we  received  the 
right  of  fishing  in  Canadian  waters.  Can  France,  England,  Oermauy, 
Italy,  or  the  Hawaiian  Islands  come  in  under  the  "  favored-nations  " 
clause  and  say  that  we  are  therefore  bound  to  make  the  duty  on  fish 
free  for  them  f  Such  an  argument  cannot  be  muintaiuod  for  a  mo- 
ment, and  if  urged  we  can  reply  to  those  countries  that  they  are  per- 
haps entitled  to  the  same  rights  as  other  countries  and  are  under  the 
same  obligations  as  other  countries,  and  that  when  they  can  do  for  us 
just  exactly  what  Canada  does  in  consideration  of  u  treaty ;  when 
they  can  give  us  the  important  rights  of  fishing,  of  trade,  the  same 
intercourse,  the  same  communications,  and,  in  a  word,  can  be  to  us 
what  Canada  is  and  can  give  to  ns  the  same  compensation  that  Can- 
ada can,  then  each  will  have  made  out  her  right  under  the  "favored- 
nations"  clause.  Therefore,  I  submit  that  in  theory,  law,  reason,  and 
in  practice  this  doctrine  does  not  stand  in  the  way  of  some  scheme  of 
reciprocal  trade  with  Canada.  It  may  be  said  in  addition,  as  I  have 
before  stated  under  another  heading,  that  this  scheme  is  not  intended 
to  be  necessarily  formulated  into  a  treaty.  It  may  be  formulated 
merely  as  a  tariff  law,  passed  by  Congress,  in  return  for  a  similar 
tariff  law  passed  by  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  and  thus  this  qneijtion 
might  be  avoided.  But  I  am  willing  to  place  it  on  the  broadest 
ground,  that  under  the  strictest  construction  of  the  above  clause  in 
treaties  such  a  scheme  of  reciprocal  trade  with  Canada  as  contem- 
plated by  the  resolution  may  be  carried  out.  In  any  event,  here  is 
another  of  the  compMcated  questions  which  we  desire  to  have  exam- 
ined and  thoroughly  discussed,  and  which  can  be  so  examined  and 
discussefl  by  a  commission. 

The  importance  of  this  subject  is  my  apology  for  discussing  it  so 
much  at  length.  These  questions,  affecting  the  commercial  interests 
and  the  friendly  relations  of  two  great  countries,  are  of  no  trifling 
importance.  They  are  worthy  of  the  careful,  patient,  and  unpreju- 
diced consideration  of  the  people  and  of  Congress.  Few  questions  of 
more  importance  and  having  a  more  direct  bearing  upon  the  interests 
of  all  classes  of  our  citizens,  whether  producers  or  consumers,  whether 
farmers,  merchants,  manufacturers,  or  laborers,  have  been  presented 
for  the  action  of  the  present  Congress.  This  question  demands  from 
us  a  decision  upon  its  merits,  and  that  we,  regardless  of  prejudices  or 
local  interests,  shall  decide  it  according  to  the  best  of  our  judgment 
as  to  what  the  interests  of  the  country  and  of  the  people,  as  a  whole, 
demand.  Such  full  and  impartial  consideration  I  hope  this  subject 
will  receive  from  this  House,  and,  receiving  it,  I  believe  the  resolu- 
tion under  consideration  will  be  adopted. 

O 


